IPS Blog

U.S.-India Nuke Transactions Go From Bad to Worse

“The United States has made new concessions as part of its civilian nuclear agreement with India,” Nicholas Kravlev reported for the Washington Times back in April, “while New Delhi has yet to make it possible for U.S. companies to benefit from the unprecedented deal. … Washington agreed to Indian demands to increase the number of plants allowed to reprocess U.S.-supplied nuclear fuel from one to two [in order to] avoid long-distance transportation of dangerous materials. Arms control experts denounced the new deal saying it adds to the “damage” done by the original agreement.”

For those unfamiliar with how damaging that was, Kralev reminds us that “the Bush administration went against established norms and allowed a country that has not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to use U.S.-supplied fuel to make plutonium, though for strictly civilian purposes.”

Nor is it just the arms control crowd for which the United States engaging in nuclear commerce with India presents a problem. As Colum Lynch reported in his UN blog “Turtle Bay” at Foreign Policy . . .

“There is mistrust,” said Egypt’s U.N. ambassador, Maged A. Abdelaziz [according to whom] the five major nuclear powers are [among other things] permitting a special group of nations — India, Israel, and Pakistan — a free pass to produce nuclear weapons, without having to abide by the obligations of signatories to the NPT. “States outside the treaty are reaping the benefits of the treaty,” he said.

As Andrew Lichterman and M.V. Ramana write in Beyond Arms Control (2010, Critical Will):

“Procedurally, if such a deal were to be agreed to at all, it should have been voted on by all states parties to the NPT rather than just by” those few states that compose the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). “By its very constitution, the NSG, consisting mostly of countries that engage in and profit from nuclear commerce, is a biased body, not suited to decide on the future of non-proliferation norms. … There is a sour irony in the NSG making such an exception for India, since the trade cartel was formed largely in response to India exploding a nuclear device in 1974. [Emphasis added.]

Meanwhile, what’s this about New Delhi yet to make it possible for U.S. companies to benefit from the original deal? Disarmament considerations aside, is America being played by India? More likely, the aftershocks from Bhopal have yet to cease reverberating. As Kralev wrote in his Washington Times piece, “India thus far has failed to pass legislation that would release U.S. companies from liability in case of accidents [in the] two reactors expected to be built” under the original agreement.

Presumably, though, U.S., as well as Indian, corporations expect to ultimately prevail. Lichterman and Ramana again: “. . . the nuclear deal is part of a broader set of [U.S.-Indian] agreements [which] US-based multinationals are. . . hoping to use. . . as a wedge to further open India to foreign investment and sales.” Of course . . .

In light of the spiraling collapse of the US financial sector, the notion that opening India to its particular brand of radically deregulated, short-term profit-driven “financial services” will promote “economic stability” is highly suspect. [Read: laughable. – RW] … The effect of the US-India deal. . . will be to bind India to a development path favourable to particular elements in the US political and economic elite and to their Indian counterparts. … nuclear power is most useful for serving. . . the consumption needs of the elites who profit from them. It has far less promise, however, for solving the energy needs of the vast majority of India’s population. … Nuclear power, as the most expensive form of centralized electricity generation, is an inefficient way to deliver energy to this population living in villages spread out over a vast country side.

Meanwhile, whither sustainable development in this equation? Lichterman and Ramana explain that “use of decentralized, renewable energy technologies in India [would be] economically efficient. . . self-reliant. . . and environmentally sound [and would promote] innovation and bring down prices.”

We’ll end with another irony to bookend the earlier instance cited by Lichterman and Ramana in which the Nuclear Suppliers Group made an exception for the state (India) in response to whose explosion of a nuclear device the NPG was, in large part, formed. “But even in terms of the urban rich,” they write, “the reality is that nuclear power in India has been mostly a failure. [It generates] less than one percent of its total energy needs. This is unlikely to grow significantly.”

Between India’s elites failing to see the return they expected, its masses denied both energy and sustainable development, and U.S. plans thwarted at the moment by the Indian legislature, it looks like the India-U.S. nuclear deal has thus far been a lose-lose-lose deal.

Right-wing Loonies Support Okinawa Base Relocation

OkinawaThe Washington Post recently featured a full-page ad supporting U.S. military presence in Japan and Okinawa. The ad, sponsored by the Association for the Protection of Okinawa’s Freedom and the Happiness Realization Party, made the following claims:

“There is a heated debate surrounding the relocation of the U.S. airbase in Okinawa. Some leftists are frantically attempting to expel the U.S. military from Japan. The Japanese media have been actively reporting on this campaign against the bases. This gives the impression that the majority of Japanese are opposed to these bases. This is not true.”

This was a curious string of half-truths and misrepresentations. Only the first sentence is correct. There is indeed a heated debate. But it’s not about expelling the U.S. military from Japan. It’s very specifically about the building of a new U.S. base in Okinawa to replace the Futenma facility. The campaign focused very narrowly on preventing this new base – not on closing other U.S. bases on Okinawa much less U.S. bases elsewhere in Japan. The Japanese media has actively reported on this narrow campaign, not on the imaginary campaign to expel the U.S. military from Japan.

And how do the Japanese feel about the relocation of Futenma? Actually, a majority of Japanese are opposed to the new base: 52 percent compared to only 41 percent who support it. If you go to Okinawa, the opposition to the new base grows precipitously to 90 percent. Nearly 100,000 Okinawans – almost 10 percent of the population – gathered to protest the base back in April.

What do the ad sponsors offer as counter-evidence? The Association for the Protection of Okinawa’s Freedom brought together 300 people in Nago in Okinawa to demonstrate support for the new base. Not exactly a groundswell of support compared to the nearly 100,000 who voiced opposition to the new base.

And what about the other ad co-sponsor? The Happiness Realization Party is the political wing of a religious cult whose leader believes he is the incarnation of the Buddha. And what a strange incarnation he is, for he believes that Japan must renounce its peace constitution and rearm to the teeth. The wife of this reincarnated Buddha ran for office last year on a platform of attacking North Korea and preparing for an inevitable Chinese invasion.

Right-wing militarists and religious fanatics are not exactly the alliance partners the United States should be seeking out. And if these are the only political forces in Japan that can be mustered to support the Okinawa base relocation plan, Washington is facing a long, long battle to get its way.

Getting Beyond the Usual Suspects on Foreign Policy

Late last week I was asked to write a short response to the question, “Is American foreign policy too ambitious?” In an opening line that was edited out of the final article, I wrote, “I’m not sure who else will answer this question, but I hope an Afghan and an Iraqi are among them.” I continued:

Given the tens of thousands dead, wounded, and displaced in Afghanistan and the millions dead, wounded, and displaced in Iraq since 2001, I wonder how an Iraqi or Afghan would answer this question. So too, I wonder how the family of a dead or maimed member of the U.S. military would respond?

The person organizing the online forum for Los Angeles’ Zócalo Public Square told me that she had tried unsuccessfully to get such a commentator. Despite her best efforts, the four writers, whose responses were linked to an event for Peter Beinart’s new book The Icarus Syndrome: A History of American Hubris, were exactly the people one would expect opining about U.S. foreign policy: They were, from all appearances, white, relatively elite men like me.

With few exceptions, these are the people who have long dominated foreign-policy debates as pundits, politicians, military brass, think tankers, and academics. While discussions of any kind about foreign policy have been rare of late (with General McChrystal’s public insubordination representing a recent opportunity), a longer-term question remains about how to expand the diversity of those deemed foreign policy “experts” beyond the usual suspects.

Of course there are aberrations from the white-male-elite norm, with important voices speaking out on foreign policy from, among others, Code Pink, Iraq Veterans against the War, and a recent letter asking President Obama to begin peace talks with the Taliban. The millions in the United States and globally who took to the streets to protest the invasion of Iraq likewise represent an unprecedented degree of public involvement in foreign policy.

The question remains how to further democratize debates and directions on war and foreign policy? Although I’ve never been there in person, Zócalo’s public square, like FPIF, seems to offer one small model for inspiring greater public involvement. Clearly nothing will take the place of masses of people getting into the streets. But part of the answer also lies in changing the faces of more of the experts, in disqualifying the expertise of some of those who have led us into two deadly and unnecessary wars, and in making the usual suspects on foreign policy more reflective of the nation’s diversity.

Split This Rock Poem of the Week: Tara Betts

A weekly featured poem of provocation and witness. You can find more poetry and arts news from Blog This Rock.

Understanding Tina Turner

Quiet girl found a voice mama could not quell
inside Nutbush City Limits. The baby
blasted beyond timid Annie Mae into Tina,
grind of muscle, hip, fierce calves
dominating heels into domesticity.

In the early music video era,
I soaked up her battered denim jacket,
leather mini-skirt, spiked wig and stilettos.
I’d throw my head back like her
rippling antennas of brown hair,
belting to no one in particular,
What’s Love Got to Do With It?

Twenty years later, people joke
about Ike’s fists granting Tina her name,
how she transitioned terror rooted
in spousal rhythm and blues to rock diva,
thunderdome warrior queen
with a mountain mansion overseas.

Hurts twang the womb
then escape into songs—like a man
who never holds you too close, too long,
trying to crush music within.

-Tara Betts

From Arc & Hue (Willow Books 2009). Used by permission.

Tara Betts is the author of Arc and Hue (Aquarius Press/Willow Books, 2009). She teaches at Rutgers University and leads community-based workshops. Her work has been published in Essence, Crab Orchard Review, Ninth Letter, Callaloo, Gathering Ground and many others. She is one of the poetry editors for The November 3rd Club, an online journal of political writing.

Betts appeared on the Willow Books Reading panel during Split This Rock Poetry Festival: Poems of Provocation & Witness 2010.

G-20: Forum for International Non-Cooperation?

G20The G-20 has declared itself the “premier forum for international economic cooperation.” As President Barack Obama and his counterparts head into their summit in Toronto this weekend, however, there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of cooperating going on.

In advance of the meeting, Obama sent a letter to other G20 leaders encouraging them to continue their stimulus programs until the recovery is stronger. That was a very sensible request. Slashing public spending now, when unemployment is still rising in the euro zone and remains at 10% in the United States, could plunge us into deeper crisis and make it even more difficult to pay back public debts over the long run.

Key European leaders immediately rejected Obama’s plea. New UK Prime Minister David Cameron unveiled an emergency budget plan that will slash government spending by 25 percent. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, hit hard by the Greek crisis, and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso also made it clear they have shifted their focus to budget cuts.

At a public event on the G-20 in Toronto yesterday, Damon Silvers, the AFL-CIO’s Public Policy Department Director, said the Europeans’ reaction is like a “fiscal Smoot-Hawley,” referring to the notorious 1930 U.S. law that jacked up tariffs on imports, triggering a trade war. Smoot-Hawley is widely blamed for exacerbating the Great Depression. Budget slashing in Europe could have a similarly devastating ripple effect, as consumers in that region have less money to spend on goods and services.

But European leaders shouldn’t take all the blame for the lack of cooperative spirit going into this G-20 summit. Obama’s lecturing on stimulus spending may have gone over better if his administration had shown more openness to some of the European leaders’ priority proposals. Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have led a push for a G-20 agreement on financial speculation taxes (aka financial transactions taxes). They sent a letter of their own requesting that the matter be placed on the agenda in Toronto. Such a tax on trades of stock, derivatives, and other financial instrument could raise massive revenues for urgent needs.

So far, however, the Obama administration has opposed the idea, favoring a levy on top banks that would generate much less revenue and be aimed only at recouping bailout funds.

Obama may be the voice of reason on the immediate need for continued stimulus spending. But if we’re going to get back on a sustainable fiscal path in the medium term, we need to take seriously the need for major new revenue sources.

Petraeus Harbinger of Peace, Not Another Surge?

Firing Gen. McChrystal and replacing him with Gen. Petraeus raises many questions. For example, some say that when he accepted the post as top commander in Afghanistan, it was made clear to Gen. Petraeus that he’d come away with no great success like he supposedly had in Iraq with the Surge. On the other hand, did Petraeus take the position on the condition that the United States would send more troops to Iraq and switch back to a counterterrorism strategy from counterinsurgency?

But President Obama has stated that our Afghanistan strategy will remain the same. While that may be an attempt to appear strong and present a united front, will the administration, in fact, use this as an opportunity to begin the Great Drawdown? (After all, McChrystal is a ready-made fall guy for the failure of COIN.)

At IPS News Gareth Porter has an answer to those who fear that the error of COIN is about to be compounded with a new Surge (which always struck me as reinforcements rebranded):

Petraeus’s political skills and ability to sell a strategy involving a negotiated settlement offers Obama more flexibility than he has had with McChrystal in command.

Contrary to the generally accepted view that Petraeus mounted a successful counterinsurgency campaign in Iraq, his main accomplishment was to make the first formal accommodation with Sunni insurgents.

Petraeus demonstrated in his command in Iraq a willingness to adjust strategic objectives in light of realities he could not control. He had it made it clear to his staff at the outset that they would make one last effort to show progress, but that he would tell Congress that it was time to withdraw if he found that it was not working.

Do Focal Points readers think the appointment of General Petraeus might portend peace, or another surge?

Letters to the Editor: Kaul on Kagan and God

Readers tend to love or despise OtherWords columnist Donald Kaul. Here’s the latest on their letters.

“I enjoy all your columns they publish in the (Biloxi, MS) Sun Herald, but this morning’s column was particularly enjoyable,” wrote Ms. Carole A. Dunn of Ocean Springs, MS. This praise came in a page-long letter in response to Academic Diversity on the Supreme Court, in which Kaul said he didn’t think Elena Kagan should become the next Supreme Court justice because she went to Harvard. It’s always nice to get mail from our fans in these days of instant everything, especially when they have a sense of humor.

Meanwhile, Kaul’s tongue-in-cheek God’s to Blame Too column, in which he called on Americans to stop blaming everything on government, attracted attention in the letters sections of the Springfield (MO) News-Leader and the Marshall (MN) Independent.

“Dear gentle readers, Do you know how you can tell when you have socialists on the run? When they start blaming God for their inadequacies,” intones Michael R. Peters of Springfield, Missouri. “Father’s promised ‘reward,’ Don, is eternal life. His punishment is eternal damnation – that’s Hell, Don. The rest He leaves up to us, and, unfortunately, people like Donald Kaul, Barack Obama, et al.”

The News-Leader granted a “rose” to Kaul “for his satiric and thoughtful column about whom to blame for misfortunes in life, government or God.” The paper issued a “thorn” “to those to those who missed his wit and point.”

The same column triggered the Independent to run a lengthy letter that quoted scripture. “I can always count on him to write something stupid, but this time he outdid himself. Perhaps he never read the old testament book of Judges, or the prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel. They illustrate how God chose the Israelites to demonstrate His blessings for obedience, and the cost of doing it your own way, which usually turns outs to be wrong,” wrote Cliff Reed, of Marshall, Minnesota. “Just remember, there are no prophets left to talk Him out of giving us the Sodom and Gomorrah treatment when He finally gets fed up with us.”

A REALLY BIG Black Swan

Black SwanIn the security biz, it’s rarely the anticipated events that kick your butt. It’s those so-called ‘black swans’ that blindside you, and maybe even inflict a career-ending injury.

Let me suggest one of those is paddling up the bayou at this very moment – carefully dodging the oil slicks – and we’re so busy looking at old threats and repeating our old prejudices at ever higher volume that we can’t hear the splash of those big, webbed feet.

The cygnus atratus I’m referring to is detailed here by Gus Lubin at The Business Insider. What he points out using wonderfully clear graphics is that:

  • The wealth gap between the richest 1% and everyone else in America hasn’t been this bad since the Roaring Twenties
  • The richest 1% has over 33% of the wealth
  • The richest 10% has over 71% of the wealth
  • Half of America has only 2.5% of the wealth
  • Real average earnings have not increased in 50 years
  • Savings rates are shrinking
  • And the only real socio-economic mobility is downward.

I think this is the greatest national security risk facing America – and it’s completely under the radar.

Now, let me be clear. I’m not just talking about a backlash from tea party types, militia members and disgruntled Cessna pilots having a really bad day. (Although I expect there will be plenty of that.) It’s much more serious.

Real security is about economic and social well-being. And what those graphics show is that the American economy is a house of cards, waiting for a good breeze, and societal well-being is heading south faster than Joe Barton’s seniority on Energy and Commerce.

That breeze might come from the looming collapse of the commercial real estate market and its highly leveraged CDOs; the implosion of the municipal bond market and states’ inability to raise money to keep providing services; or any of a number of potential shocks that could trigger an iterative ‘avalanche’ effect.

This is an existential grade threat, sport fans. It’s quite literally about the ‘hollowing out’ of America, and its steady progress toward failed state status.

(BTW, the annual Failed States Index just came out, and guess what? America is rated ‘moderate’ in terms of failure potential.)

This is about the danger of shattered dreams and expectations, and the disintegration of primary loyalties (patriotism / nationalism). It’s about the transfer of allegiance from nation state to sub-national entities, be those clan, tribe, gang, corporation, neighborhood or . . . **

Now dial in these multipliers.

Most all of the ‘growth’ in the American economy since 1998 is smoke. It’s the sale of derivatives and other ‘financial figments’ that are traded without adding any genuine value. The best analogy I can offer is it’s like Hertz rotating the tires on their rental fleet and booking each transaction as a sale.

That monetized smoke has ended up in the hands of that 10% referenced above. Even though the value is mostly illusory, it has tilted the economic scales even more against the average person. All those bubbles caused when the smoke holders try to convert it into real value – whether tech stocks, housing, metals or food – have increased costs of living for the 90%. Multiply that by the reality that real wages have been falling since the 1970s – and if true inflation were honestly factored in it would be far, far worse – and you start to see why Joe Sixpack is not only seriously scared, but righteously pissed.

Bad combo. For as Bob Marley put it so well, ‘A hungry mob is an angry mob.’

And it’s iterative. It cascades. Because all the money has been sucked out by the 10%, there is none left for cops, firefighters, libraries, fixing potholes, building schools . . . the stuff that makes us think tomorrow will be better for ourselves and our children.

(Anyone NOT seeing this in their community?)

The state’s inability to provide services – not least physical security and a stable context for livelihood / savings / retirement – drives people into ‘dark’ economies. (‘They’re not giving me anything back, so screw ‘em.’) That money leaves the system, and the spiral deepens.

One of the first policy symptoms is isolationism. People think, ‘Things are tough at home, so the hell with them damn furiners.’ This is a key reason the IrAfPak franchise of the All American Amusement Park is unsustainable – regardless of how much lithium they may find over there.

If POTUS doesn’t get that these wars (which are now perceived as ‘his’) will breed ferocious resentment / blame over the misallocation of resources, he needs new advisors. (Well, he needs those in any case.) At minimum, these underlying realities could make him a one-term wonder. They may even make him the first president to turn federal troops on their fellow citizens in large numbers since the Bonus Army.

Other symptoms of this hollowing out – the ‘sinkhole’ phenomenon – include the onset of social and economic warlordism (think Hezbollah, La Familia and Dudus Coke) active and passive subversion / systems disruption, and, as Bob Marley also sang, ‘Burnin’ and a lootin’ tonight.’

Are we talking tomorrow? No. (Probably not, anyway.) Even failing systems often have more elasticity and capacity in them than we anticipate.

But if we track behavior over time, as the Lubin graphics do so well, the probability of a crater becomes much more apparent.

Buckle up, Bunkie. We could be heading for a wild ride.

**One of the really interesting questions is what kind of ‘attractors’ the new loyalties will coalesce around. I doubt they’ll be ideological – at least for long – because dogma tends to make orgs non-adaptive. I believe their primary characteristics will be entrepreneurial and they’ll provide not only livelihood, but also identity, community, security and fun. Think Robin Hood meets Ecotopia. Or, maybe, Steve Jobs dances with wolves.

And thanks to Fabius Maximus for the link to the Lubin piece!

Crazy Talk in the Middle East

Trying to track—let alone make sense—of recent developments around Iran is enough to make one reach for that stuff they just found lots of in Afghanistan: lithium. While the element is essential for a host of electronics, it is also a standard treatment for bipolar behavior.

Take the issue of Iran’s missile force. The conservative International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London concluded that the threat the missiles pose to Israel, the U.S. or its allies has been vastly overstated. “While such attacks might trigger fear, the expected casualties would be low—probably less than a few hundred,” the study found. Iran’s Shehab-1 and 2 cannot even reach Israel, and it will be at least three years before the longer range Shahab-3B and Sejjil-2 are deployed. In any case, according to the study, the missiles are inaccurate.

But while the IISS was pooh-poohing the danger, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Europe was threatened by “hundreds” of Iranian missiles, although Iran doesn’t have a missile that can come close to hitting Europe. Gates was on Capitol Hill pumping the Obama administration’s new sea and land-based “ phased adaptive approach” to missile defense.

In the meantime, the U.S. was sending an aircraft carrier and almost a dozen support ships into the Red Sea. Rumor has it that the fleet will try to intercept Gaza aid ships organized by the Iranian Red Crescent Society. Several Israeli submarines are currently deployed in the Gulf of Iran as well, along with a newly arrived surface warship. While it seems extremely unlikely that the U.S. would actually try to halt the Iranian ships, U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said, “ I don’t think that Iran’s intentions vis-à-vis Gaza are benign.”

The London Times reported that the Israelis and the Americans had come to an agreement with Saudi Arabia to allow Israeli warplanes to cross the desert kingdom without being challenged on their way to bomb nuclear sites in Iran. While Riyadh called the story “slanderous, the Times was holding to its sources in the Israeli and U.S. militaries. And Tzahi Hanegbi, chair of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said that “time was running out” for Iran.

As I said, people are talking very crazy these days in the Middle East.

If Israeli planes did decide to bomb targets in Iran, conventional thinking is they would hit enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, a gas storage unit at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. Planes might also target the light-water reactor at Bushehr. To do so, of course, would require crossing Jordanian and Saudi airspace, but there is very little either country could do about it. Challenging the Israelis in the air is a very bad idea.

Even with mid-flight refueling, it would be a stretch, but it would be hard to knock out Iranian targets using just their missile firing submarines. Unless, of course, the Israelis are willing to cross the Hiroshima-Nagasaki line and use nuclear warheads. It seems like madness, but then some people are talking pretty crazy these days.

In a recent Christian Science Monitor article, “Does Israel suffer from ‘Iranophobia’?”, reporter Scott Peterson examines the Israeli mindset and found some pretty scary things. “There’s something utterly irrational and exceedingly disproportionate in Israeli understandings of the Iranian threat,” says Haggai Ram, a professor at Ben Gurion University and author of “Iranophobia: The Logic of an Israeli Obsession.”

“Iran is perhaps the most central issue [in Israel], yet there is really no critical debate about this,” says Ram, and for those Israelis who do challenge the idea that Iran is an “existential threat” to Israel, “they are immediately rendered into these bizarre self-defeating, self-hating Jews, and seen as a fifth column.”

According to Ram, “For Israelis, anti-Iran is a consensus. You don’t have to be a neoconservative to wish for the destruction of Iran.” Polls show that Prime Minister Netanyahu is growing in popularity, and that Israelis are circling the wagons on everything from the attack on the Gaza flotilla to the embargo of Gaza Strip.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad has also said that one day “Israel will vanish,” but much of his bombast is for internal consumption and the need to divert people from the economic crisis at home. Netanyahu’s comparison of Ahmadinejad to Hitler, and of the current situation to 1939, serves much the same purpose. Focusing on Iran keeps the world’s eyes away from the ongoing occupation of Palestinian lands and the strangulation of Gaza.

How much of this is real is hard to sort out. The U.S. talks about Iran as a “threat,” even though Iran has neither the military nor the economic capabilities to inflict serious damage on Americans. Iran can also talk about Israel vanishing, but can do nothing to actually facilitate that. Even if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, to use it would be national suicide, and the Iranians have never exhibited a desire for self-destruction.

The danger is that rhetoric and bombast can create its own reality and lead to a mistake. The Israeli attack on the Turkish ship was just that. When people with nuclear weapons talk in apocalyptic language, it’s something to pay attention to.

Page 230 of 245« First...102030...228229230231232...240...Last »