Manmohan Singh's Koodankulam Moment

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement that the protests at the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant have been motivated and encouraged by United States-based non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has given credence to a long-held view that foreign vested interests are orchestrating protests by fanning among the people a sense of hysteria and thus stalling the nation’s growth. Earlier also speculations were raised about the way massive protests have been undertaken to stall the commissioning of the 9,200 MW Indo-Russian nuclear energy venture.

While the anti-nuclear protesters have rubbished the prime minister’s statement, made to American journal Science, the Bharatiya Janata Party, the principal opposition party at the Centre, has rightly asked the government to disclose the details based on which the statement was made. The natural step for the Congress-led government would be to place the facts before the nation for the people to see and decide. If found to be true, strict action should be taken against the NGOs for trying to act against our national interests. This also stresses the need for more accountability into the running and funding of NGOs — especially those with international connections — across the country.

Indian economy is passing through a turbulent time and for the economy to grow, the present level of power generation is not sufficient. Power plants, like the one at Koodankulam, are essential for meeting this challenge. Any force, within or outside the country, conniving to hamper the realisation of this should be treated as working against national interest. However, this being said, it is the government’s responsibility to address the genuine fears of the people living around the plant about their safety, especially after what was witnessed at Fukushima in March 2011. The government is duty-bound to meet the growing demand for power in the country and at the same time win the confidence of the people. The question is: will the UPA be able to rise up to the occasion?
(This appeared as an editorial in The New Indian Express on Saturday February 25)

India Should Not Succumb to Pressure Over Iran

The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government has showed unusual tenacity is holding its cards close to its chest and not succumbing to growing pressure from the United States and Israel to blame Iran for the February 13 bomb attack on an Israeli diplomat’s car in New Delhi. Not only has the government refrained from airing its doubts but has also approached the scenario with maturity. This is evident in the statement made by Union commerce minister Anand Sharma on Wednesday that India will be going ahead with its planned trade delegation to Tehran, and that terrorism and trade are “separate issues”.

While India has strong defence ties with Israel, India annually imports crude oil close to $12 billion. Iran is important not only because of oil but also access it provides to the region. The Port of Chabahar, in Iran, is vital for India’s access to Afghanistan, especially in a scenario where a US pullout from the country will leave India with little support in the region. New Delhi will have to factor this aspect as well while taking a call.
Without doubt India finds itself in a spot as both Israel and Iran are important allies. But New Delhi should see this as an opportunity to present itself to the world as a responsible nation capable of taking mature decisions even if it means not toeing the US line. Such an independent stand will also prove that India’s claim for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council is one that is earned over the years and not one doled because of the benevolence for ‘right conduct’. India’s stand that it will abide by a United Nations resolution, be it against Iran or Syria, and not favour unilateral moves is the right approach.
India should go ahead with its investigation and not be influenced by outside pressure. If the trail leads to Iran, New Delhi should condemn Tehran in no uncertain words — but should not allow itself to be used as the stick by Israel or the West to beat Iran.
(This article appeared as an editorial in The New Indian Express on February 17, 2012)

Indian Economy’s Reverse Loop

An economics professor at the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi brought to notice that the government’s Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) or rather the haphazard way in which the scheme is being carried out has cost a little girl her life in Manika, Jharkhand on February 15. This is a serious issue because the MGNREGA is one of the flagship programmes launched by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and it is plagued with problems. If this programme continues with these flaws, by around a few years or a decade the burden on the then government would be to undo the damage done by the scheme.
There is no doubt that this scheme, in spite of the massive corruption that has been taking place, has been a blessing to lakhs of people in the rural areas. But the merits it possesses are not substantial to overlook the flaws it has deep embedded in it. To highlight one of the problems: The scheme has drained the labour pool and has led to an alarming shortage of farm hands, mainly in Punjab and Maharashtra (especially around harvest time).

If such a scheme has been continuing with little scope of reform from the government’s side, the blame should be squarely put on the Opposition, especially the BJP (one can’t expect the Congress to highlight the flaws in the scheme it has introduced). For all the noise and grandstanding it does, including that it is a viable alternative to the corrupt Congress, the ‘party with a difference’ has not been able to highlight the flaws in a scheme that will probably lead to the wrecking of the country’s economy. 
The government seems unlikely to change its stand, partly because the scheme has reaped benefits (for the people as well as for the party) and partly because it is a prestige issue for the government. A rollback at this time, especially with many State Assembly elections around, is unlikely.
The scheme at this point, with the flaws in it, is acting as a reverse loop in India’s economic algorithm; like a go-back-to-square-one button. Not many in the ruling Congress might agree with this view; but I’m sure there is one gentleman, sitting huddled over books in the South Block and pulling out the little hair that’s left on his head, who will concur with this in the deepest recesses of his mind – Union finance minister Pranab Mukherjee.

Syria Question Divides the World

On Saturday the United Nations saw Russia and China vetoing a West and Arab League-backed resolution against Syria demanding President Bashar al-Assad to step down because of the bloody crackdown on his people. Hours before the UN meeting deadly attacks carried out by Syrian security forces (Syrian authorities have blamed the opposition) killed more than 200 people in Homs, 160 kilometres north of Damascus. Though Russia and China acted on expected lines, India voting in favour of the resolution was a surprise. Known to usually abstain from such moves, India has asked for a peaceful resolution that sees Syria also being involved in the process. India has done the right move by showing that it is capable of taking tough decisions at an international forum. This is also a statement that it has earned its UNSC seat.





With Syria being the vortex of the so-called Arab Spring, the West has got in its hand a crisis it wished had not begun. Not only has the West lost its set pieces on the board, it has seen the rise of ‘radical’ forces like the Muslim Brotherhood in the region. Add to this the chaos spreading to other countries and an all-too assertive Iran - the West (primarily the United States of America) is having what seems to be a series of nightmares.
However, anyone who has observed Syria over the decades will not be surprised at the turn of events. After all it is Bashar whom the US preferred to keep in spite of the atrocities he has carried out in the region and against the US. Bashar has killed thousands of his people and sent militants into Iraq to kill American contractors; he has armed the Hezbollah, supported the Hamas, is an Iran ally and has adversely influenced the developments in Lebanon. But Washington maintained the stand that the known devil is better than the unknown. The fear of a more radical outfit gaining prominence in Damascus or that of the country descending into chaos has vanished and now the US is in the forefront of demanding the ouster of Assad. The factors that have led to Washington’s change of mind are not clear yet. David Schenker, a former Levant director at the Pentagon, was of the opinion that America’s policy towards Syria has always been one that has not yet been developed.

The Survivor
Bashar al-Assad has been able to hold fort till date mainly because of two reasons. First is the relation he has maintained with the West and other countries, importantly Russia (see Russia Factor). The second is Assad’s minority plank. Assad, a Ba’ath Party member and Alawi has made sure to infuse pride among the minorities in the country that their president, ruthless as he may be, he is one among them and has protected them from the majority Sunni community which otherwise would have relegated them to the margins of society. There are also sections in Syria that feel that he has lend respect and honour to a country that was otherwise not taken seriously in the region. Bashar al-Assad is known to have told his close associates that he was of the view that if a ruler provides the people with what they want, he can rule without hassles. According to Bashar he would provide the people of Syria the basics - a home, a job and a car - and in return his rule will go on unopposed, unquestioned.

Lessons Learnt
The prolonged crisis (the unrest started in March last year) in Syria shows that unlike as was the case earlier when the United States (without considering the option of approaching the United Nations) thought it fit to invade Iraq on its hunt for non-existing WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), now the scene has changed. The economic slowdown, the rise of other economies and the international condemnation Washington has received for its exploits in West Asia, both from within the country and outside, has played a role in it mellowing down on its ways. It has realised that its trigger-happy enforcement of democracy around the world has earned it more enemies than friends.
The experience in Egypt and Libya has taught the world, especially the West, important lessons on how not to go about in Syria. While in Egypt (after initial reluctance) the US supported the opposition movement, the result is not what as expected. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, through the ballot, has caught them unawares. In Libya, the West managed to oust and capture Muammar Gaddafi but the Libyan Transitional Council has not been able to show the promise of stability and peace, vital for a country that has witnessed a revolution.

Russia Factor
Russia has been criticised for being the stumbling block for a UN Security Council resolution against Syria. Russia’s deputy foreign minister Gennadi Gatilov has said that the move to ouster Assad was a “doomed” one and instead the call should be to fight the opposition forces that are causing violence in the country. Syria is a big client of Russia’s arms industries and this lobby has a great sway over Kremlin. Syria yearly buys close to $700 million worth of arms from Russia. The unrest in the region has caused a dip in the sales and Russia has already cancelled lucrative deals with Iran after reaching an agreement with Washington.
Political analyst observing Kremlin believe that elections in Russia will change its approach towards Syria and any future UNSC resolution. Many say that President Dmitry Medvedev was ‘fooled’, by the West, into believing action was necessary in Libya. Moreover, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who is likely to be the next president, has not been mincing his words while criticising the West (US) for creating unrest in Russia. He is also doubtful of the West’s intentions in West Asia. Russia is also not buying the argument put forward by the West that unless it supports the opposition movement in Syria, it will not be a frontrunner when the new government is formed in Damascus. Russia’s defense, and a valid one, is that if the current government falls it will be followed by a civil war and sectarian violence leading to chaos, as is witnessed in other countries in the region. Assad’s iron hand over the political system has rendered it without a visible and efficient opposition that can takeover once Assad is gone. The civil war will create large-scale migration into neighbouring countries further worsening the situation.

Arab League Report
As is the case with most of the developments in West Asia, the Arab League report submitted by its observers who toured Syria is mired in controversy. While the report was backed by Algeria, Egypt, Sudan and Oman, it was opposed by Qatar - the current president of the league. One of the arguments is that the observers were not able to extensively tour the affected regions and thus their report does not reflect the extensive damage done by the Assad regime. Damascus, in its defense, is arguing that violence was on the rise in many of the regions the observers toured because the government had pulled back its forces, according to the demand of the observers. Groups backing the Assad regime state that the government is fighting ‘shady armed gangs’ that are causing unrest in the country to bring down the government.
The Arab League report and the developments thereafter should be viewed from the fact that Syria was suspended from the league in November last. Also, among the more than two dozen countries that are calling for Syria’s ouster from two UN committees are Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. The UNESCO executive board meeting convening from February 27 will take a call on this issue.

Conclusion
There is an urgent need for a plan to stop the violence and bloodshed in Syria because the longer the unrest prolongs more are the chances of sectarian wars breaking out between the Sunni majority and the Alawite, Christian, Kurd minority. The United Nations will not be able to bring peace to the country once things deteriorate to that level and we can expect something at par or even worse than what is now being witnessed in Iraq and Libya.
Given this one cannot sit idle and watch as Assad, or as he claims ‘extremist elements’, continue to unleash violence and kill innocent people throughout the country. The West has its interests and so do Russia and other Arab nations. There are pitfalls in a UNSC resolution against the Assad regime but if one were to weigh both the options, it is better than not taking any action at all. The world has to choose between the lesser of evils to check a brutal dictator and give Syrians the freedom and peace they deserve.

(An edited version of this article has appeared in The New Indian Express on February 6)

Is Imran Khan Pakistan’s Knight in Shining Armour?

 
It is said that politicians will always aspire to become leaders while true leaders are chosen and ushered to the front by the people when the time is ripe. The clouds move and the sky clears when it is time for the right person to emerge. Pakistan has not, in the recent past, faced such a plethora of problems all erupting in quick succession — the Raymond Davis issue, in which two people were gunned down by what Pakistan claimed was a CIA operative, saw popular anger reach a feverish pitch; the Abbottabad raid that saw Osama bin Laden killed exposed Pakistan and its Army-ISI to the world, and there was the November 26 US drone attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers severing Pak-US ties. If this was not trouble enough then came Memogate. It is alleged that President Zardari, through then Pakistan ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani (who through businessman Mansoor Ijaz) tried to request Washington to avert a military coup in Pakistan at a time when Pakistanis have written off their civilian government. Then on October 30 in Lahore and in December in Karachi cricketer-philanthropist-politician Imran Khan held a political meeting which received a phenomenal response.
If one were to go by these recent events and the media — especially international — Imran Khan is tipped to be the next messiah who will guide Pakistan in its time of trouble. While there is some truth in this theory, to believe that Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which is still considered an ‘also-ran’ in politics, will topple traditional political powerhouses like the Zardari-headed Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, is to grossly underestimate the complex equations that constitute politics in Pakistan.

TINA Factor
This is not to say that Imran Khan is a novice in politics. Gone are the days when the people saw him as a dashing cricketer-playboy who turned to politics in the belief that he could cash in on his popularity. Imran Khan, who established the PTI in 1995 has till recently been viewed by political observers as an outsider or as ‘one-of-the-many-fringe-parties’. What have worked in his favour is his clean, corruption-free image and his philanthropy. He has made a conscious effort to distance himself from his playboy days and has reiterated that his turn to politics was a spiritual call more than anything else — in a recent interview he said, “… faith has made me a responsible member of human society and that is why I have entered politics. Otherwise, I would not have entered politics.” He has established a cancer hospital (in memory of his mother who died of the disease) and a university to promote technical education. His flood relief fund raked in much more than Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani could achieve.
It is also said that Imran Khan’s mass support now is because of the TINA (There Is No Alternative) factor. Pakistan’s ruling parties cutting across the spectrum are incorrigibly corrupt and the people are fed up with the way things are shaping up. Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, who is better known in the western world as ‘Mr 10 Per cent’ for his involvement in corrupt deals while his late wife Benazir Bhutto was the prime minister, has still got one foot in the court. Nawaz Sharif faces corruption and nepotism charges and former president and military man Pervez Musharraf is on a ‘sabbatical’ from his homeland fearing arrest for his dealing of the judiciary. Pakistan’s economy is on life support (read foreign aid), corruption is rampant and development is stalled. Add to this law and order issues and terrorism — Pakistanis have had enough. It is here that Imran Khan comes in as a whiff of fresh air. Many of the people who recently sat up to listen to Imran Khan  at his rallies do not believe that he can deliver or give them the change they are craving for, but he is better than the other options.
How can one leave out the Pakistani Army, and the ubiquitous ISI, from this political maze? It is unfortunate but true that any discussion of politics in Pakistan is incomplete without a mention of the army; after all it is the army which has ruled the nation, often through bloody coups, for a better part of its history.

People and Judiciary
Given the events that have involved, and affected adversely, the army, and taking into account the country’s history one would not be wrong to bet on a military coup. However, the change this time is the people and the judiciary. The people, pushed to a corner, are voicing their displeasure like never before and the judiciary, under Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, is more proactive than ever. Credit should also be given to General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani for moving cautiously till now as often momentary decisions and mood swings of military heads have decided Pakistan’s course.
What might tip or has tipped the scales of the West and the military in favour of Imran is his stand towards the Taliban. Imran is for negotiations with Islamic militants — this fits Washington’s plan for a dignified exit from Afghanistan, and the military cannot disagree with the idea of getting cosy with the Taliban. His resentment of foreign aid and chastising of American action in Pakistan has won him popular support. A good example of this is a tweet of his on January 10: ‘US: We will be your friend, not your slave. We will help you withdraw from Afghanistan, but will not launch military operation for you’.

Chink in Armour
Imran’s clean image is his USP but the question is how long will it remain so? Many political heavyweights have recently moved to the PTI camp and they come with a lot of baggage. Imran Khan has long advocated reviewing the taxation system in the country which allows the rich to glide by while the middle class and others go through the eye of the needle. Imran was earlier critical of the MQM for the killing of around 40 people and was pursuing a case against the outfit. But the absence of any mention about the party at his December 25 rally in Karachi has raised speculation of a patch-up.

Another issue that is wanting in the Imran camp is the lack of a popular support base. While his rallies are receiving tens of thousands of people it is not enough to win elections. The biraderi ties are crucial. Biraderi is a clan-based, kinship-based loyalty that can spread across regions. Imran does not enjoy this support. Moreover the media that shows Imran’s popularity is yet to penetrate the rural interiors.

Imran and India
It will be safe to say that as a cricketer Imran Khan was not a pleasant experience for India. But those days of cricket rivalry are long gone and today Imran is a philanthropist and politician standing at the threshold of realising his political dream.
Given the popularity he commands, his views towards Pakistan’s ‘traditional rival’, his success is important for India. New Delhi does not see his pro-Taliban approach as palatable. So far his views towards India are not radical and he believes that cordial relations with the neighbour are beneficial for both countries. But once in the seat of power, over which the ISI wields immense power, it is hard to predict the course Pakistan’s leaders may take, especially in matter relating to India.
(An edited version of this article has appeared in The New Indian Express on January 13)

Artist Who Dares the Bourgeoisie

Ai Weiwei

On April 3 while on his way to Hong Kong Ai Weiwei was arrested by Chinese police at the Beijing airport. His arrest was acknowledged by the authorities three days later and it was reported in the Global Times, the Communist Party-run newspaper. It was stated that Ai was held for ‘economic crimes’ and the authorities were investigating into it. His studio was raided, his wife was questioned and many of his assistants were also detained.
This information in itself should not be alarming, unfortunately, as this has become routine in the People’s Republic of China where the Communist Party-government has been on a protest/dissent crackdown overdrive from December 19, 2010, when Mohamed Bouazizi set himself ablaze after police highhandedness in Tunisia and tension gripped the Middle East and North Africa.

The Muffled Voices
The list of people who have been detained, arrested or ‘missing’ is endless: Liu Zhenggang, a designer who suffered a cardiac arrest while in detention; Xu Zhiyong, a lawyer charged with tax evasion; Wu Liliong, an environmentalist who was exposing industrial pollution at Lake Tai in eastern China; Guo Feixiong, a legal rights activist; Liu Xianbin, for inciting subversion; Ran Yunfei, Chen Wei and Ding Mao, all three for inciting subversion; Yang Hengjun, a novelist; and many others like Jiang Tianyong, Li Tiantian, Liu Shihui, Tang Jingling, Tang Jitain, Teng Biao…Of course how can one forget Liu Xiaobo, the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner. Liu is a political prisoner who is serving an 11-year sentence for pro-democracy appeals, especially through his Charter 08. The list goes on… Some of these people have been released while some continue to be under detention.
The vagueness in the details regarding the arrests is partially also because of the secretive nature in which the police work. Also most of the people who are released are warned not to go public about the time they spent under arrest. All this should not be surprising for a country that is run by a government that deems it fit to lock up its only Nobel Laureate.
If one were to profile all the people who are arrested or just ‘disappear’ there are a few common traits — they are either artists, or social activists or human right lawyers; all of them are either vocal about the injustices prevalent within the system or are seen as a threat by Beijing.

Protester Artist
Ai’s case is different mainly because of the political influence he has, or rather had at one point, and the international status he enjoys. Ai’s father Ai Qing was a revolutionary poet who was with Mao Zedong during the proclamation of the People’s Republic in 1949. But within a decade he was accused of advocating free-speech and revolution and was sentenced to 16 years community service. Ai Weiwei grew up seeing this dichotomy and in 1981 Ai Weiwei left for the US. As an artist Ai had a different approach and perspective to what many saw as everyday mundane things. In 1988 he got his first solo exhibition.
One of the architects of the famous Bird’s Nest (stadium) which was the cynosure of all eyes during the Beijing Olympics, Ai Weiwei has always been vocal of his discomfort the way the Communist Party was taking the Chinese people. Ai was rattled by the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, which killed around 80,000 and left close to 40 lakh homeless. More than 5,000 schoolchildren were buried alive as school buildings collapsed. Through his blogs he attacked the corrupt local administration that built the “tofu buildings”. He campaigned for the family of Chen Xiaofeng who was run over by the son of an influential official in Baoding. The campaign came to be as ‘My father is Li Gang’ — these were the words of the son as he drove away. Ai was also vocal in his support for Liu Xiaobo.

‘Fat Guy’ Difference
Ai Weiwei was released after 81 days on June 22 under the quobao houshen. The quobao houshen, which has been loosely but incorrectly compared to a bail, is an agreement in which the accused is released but investigations continue for up to a year. The accused will have the freedom to move within a restricted area (town, city) but access to the media is restricted. Ai, after lying low for a month or two, sprung back in August in a highly critical article of the government’s proposed law to detain a person for up to six months without informing the family. Later he was slapped with a $2 million fine for the tax evasion done by the company that promotes his art. Ai, known in twitter and sina weibo as Uncle Ai or ‘fat guy’, made an appeal to netizens who collected close to $1.3 mn (Ai said this was the ‘beginning of civil society in China’). The latest charge against Ai is that he is spreading pornography. Nude art is common among Chinese artists and with the emergence of a photograph titled ‘One Tiger and Eight Breasts’ the authorities are hounding Ai and the people behind the shoot. Expressing support to Ai, his fans are posting their nude pictures on the Internet.
The Chinese government arrested Ai for ‘economic crimes’ thereby making the issue an internal matter. This prevents any foreign country from interfering in their ‘internal affairs’. That this is a ‘Trojan’ used by Beijing is a well-known fact. However, his background, international support and pressure from the artistic community made it hard for the government to detain him further.
The predicament or opportunity Ai Weiwei is in — depending on which side you stand — has been very succinctly put by journalist Kelly Crow: “What happens when you become the modern-day, artistic equivalent of that young man who once stood before the tanks in Tiananmen Square?”

Ai Weiwei with his Sunflower Seeds at Tate Modern, London

Heart-Patient Sprinter
Ai Weiwei in one of his blogs describes China has a sprinter with a heart condition. China is zooming ahead with a resurgent zeal of be ‘the’ world superpower. This is aided with its economy doing well and Beijing is expanding its defence forces and forging ties with countries around the world. However, while these positives are there, it is a nation that is crumbling from within. Corruption is increasing and inequality is widening. There are no forums to address ones grievances and the government, especially the provincial ones, do not entertain complains against corruption. Add to this the fact that freedom for a Chinese citizen is the ration what the state doles out.
The uprising in the Middle East and North Africa has got Beijing worked up. While initially the unrest in Tunisia and Egypt was censored, the authorities soon understood that it could not keep its people away from the Arab Spring that was spreading like wildfire. So it got cracking on the people who were voicing their dissent or people likely to gather support for the causes they were voicing.

Different Chinas
China has changed a lot from the ideals of what it claims to be ever since it started economic reforms in 1978. Though it claims to be a socialist in outlook, a socialistic approach is today more or less on paper. The way the government has gone about with its policies of development has resulted in disparities of two kinds — income and regional. China has some of the world’s most rich people and a large pool of poor people. In the cities migrant labourers, along with their families, form this pool and are treated as second-class citizens with almost no rights. Region-wise the development can be seen as a trickle-down model. While coastal areas and cities have got the lion’s share of development, central provinces come next and the western provinces and interior regions come the last, usually getting the leftovers from the central provinces. This has led to massive migration to cities in search of labour/food. Developmental migration, due to power projects or urbanisation, should also been seen as a reason for spurring poverty and inequality.
China, today, is one of the world’s most capitalistic country in which the Communist Party is the biggest bourgeoisie. And anyone who questions the ways of this bourgeoisie is silenced.
(This appeared in The New Indian Express on November 28)

As Uncle Sam Beats the Retreat from Iraq

In the euphoria of Libyan dictator-president Muammar Gaddafi being captured and killed by Libyan rebel forces on October 20, media houses around the world overlooked or underplayed a development in the Middle East. At a relatively toned down press briefing from the White House, the following day, US President Barack Obama announced that by December 31 all US troops would leave Iraq. Thus, by bringing to an end the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was strongly opposed by many of US’ allies including France and Germany, Obama has kept one of his poll promises. This is a decision that future analyst will observe as an important move that changed the way the world does politics because a pullout by US from Iraq has more than one implication and impact. So why did such a monumental announcement by Obama go under the radar of sorts? While the move was discussed widely in the United States, internationally the response it received was lukewarm. Perhaps it was intended to be so.

Politics of pullout

Obama’s announcement was criticised by Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney as a sign of weakness and an open invitation to Iraq’s neighbour Iran to fill in the vacuum. Romney while making these allegations is either exposing his political naivety for it was President Bush who signed the withdrawal in 2008, or it is political opportunism, a craft which needs a lot of honing.

For Obama it is a win-win deal in many ways. Firstly, as the 2012 presidential race heats up, the announcement is a brownie point for Obama. As of November 4, 49 per cent of Americans approve of the way he is handling his job; that’s a two per cent rise from the previous month. The spree of assassinations -- Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Muammar Gaddafi --- has assuaged the US public that the billions they have been spending has seen some fruition.

Secondly, the war on terror, waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, has bled the US in many ways – financially, perception-wise and human casualty. Financially, the wars have cost the US close to $2.5 trillion and this sum is entirely --- yes entirely --- on money borrowed. With no tax reforms and the war spending increasing US’ debt has shot through the roof. Perception-wise the US has lost footing within and outside the country. The number of people in the US who think that the wars are of a “choice” and not a “necessity”, to use Obama’s phrase to describe the Iraq and Afghanistan operations respectively, are on the rise. Americans also feel that these operations in the Middle East and other countries have only earned them the hatred of others. A good example would be Pakistan, which is a war ally. Despite Washington pouring in billions into the country, US is detested by the people and government of Pakistan. Recent reports from Iraq indicate that even groups that initially welcomed the US forces are happy to see the pullout. The human casualty, in the form of wounded --- physically and mentally – war veterans, is an expenditure that is going to grow on the US economy as years pass by. Economists fear that this will have a telling effect on the economy in the years ahead.

Thirdly, the US, while in theory actually pulls out, actually does not. While on the surface there is a pullout the US has worked out mechanisms through which it will have a sizable presence in the Iraq. Through the various embassies in Iraq US will be employing close to 20,000 personnel. This soldier pullout paves the way for the comeback of the ‘notorious’ contractors. Ted Wright, president of Blackwater (responsible for the Nisour Square Massacre in 2007) has expressed interest to do business in Iraq again. The US has signed arms deal with Iraq worth more than $10 billion. In the lieu of training and maintenance US personnel will be stationed in Iraq soil. Given all this, it is clear that the US has made sure that it maintains its presence in the country. After all Iraq is a major oil producing country and the revenue trade with Iraq can generate through development work is too lucrative for any country to forgo.

Middle East equation

To understand the political fluctuations and future developments in the Middle East it is essential to first understand the two predominant sects in Islam --- Sunni and Shia. Sunnis form roughly 85 per cent of the Muslims world over. The Middle East is predominantly Sunni but Iraq and Iran have Shias as the majority with a presence in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. Saddam Hussein was heading a Sunni minority government in a Shia majority Iraq. He suppressed Shia and Kurd movements and Tehran was his bete noire. Other countries in the region thought of him as a good counterweight to an Iran that was getting assertive and threatening after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The United States, by invading Iraq, ousting and hanging Saddam did in a year what Iran was trying to achieve for decades. Thus Washington was levelling Iraq as a playing field for Tehran.

‘Good’ neighbour

For all the tall talk done by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that “Iran should not miscalculate about our (US) commitment to Iraqis” analyst agree that Iran’s influence over Iraq cannot be stopped, and definitely not by any of the tactics the US has used till date.

While invading Iraq former President George Bush had planned to reform the country and turn it into the first true democratic country in the region with the hope that it would serve as a beacon to other countries to move towards democracy. However, the steps taken by the US to usher in this change went wrong from the beginning. America’s hand-picked Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government could get the required numbers last year only because it got the backing of Muqtada al-Sadr, who is a Shia with active backing from Tehran. Thus the democracy that the Washington propped up in Baghdad was on the stilts lent by Tehran.

However, there is a silver-lining as Iraqis, who have longed for democracy and have witnessed the developments in the neighbouring countries, have protested against the stand Maliki has taken on the uprising in Syria. Maliki has not criticised the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, who is an ally of Iran.

Pullout Panic

Of late there has been a call for attacking Iran for the threat it poses because of the nuclear weapons it has in its possession. A rattled Israel, which has not had good relations with Iran, is in the forefront with this call for attack. While it is a matter of concern that Tehran has a clandestine nuclear programme going on in the stealth, it is also a known fact, something akin to a public secret known to all. Russia has advised caution in approaching Iran.

It is understandable that Israel is worried that with US pulling out of Iraq, Iran will have a free run over there. Add to this the Arab Spring which is bringing traditional US favourites down and giving groups that are close to Tehran a chance to run these countries; not to mention the Gilad Shalit deal which has given the Hamas a boost. Thus a US pullout from Iraq can be said to be the trigger for this panic attack.
(This appeared as an Opinion in The New Indian Express on November 10)