Nuclear Power: The Third Way
By T.P.Sreenivasan
The expectation of the nuclear establishments around the globe soon after the Fukushima disaster was that the extreme anxiety about nuclear power would die down sooner or later and that business would be as usual thereafter. The world is not there yet, but time is not far when Fukushima will be just a bad memory except for those who were affected by radiation. Not to learn its lessons from Fukushima is a grave error that humanity can make.
Globally, polarization has taken place between those who are confident that the world can rely on nuclear power for all time to come and those who want to abandon nuclear power altogether immediately even if it means a drop in economic growth. Both these alternatives are not in the long term interests of the countries concerned. By holding future generations hostage to nuclear power, we are doing them a great injustice when we know that no nuclear reactor is absolutely safe. We have every right to jeopardize our own generation, but those unborn should not be victims of our blind faith or lack of innovation or imagination. By dotting our coast with nuclear domes, we are leaving the future generations to live under the hood of a cobra.
Those who insist that nuclear power should be abandoned altogether at this instant and switch to other sources seem to be in a dream world. The investments made in the development of nuclear energy, particularly in the developing world, have paid rich dividends. As of now, the cost of nuclear power production is comparable with other sources and helps reduce greenhouse gaseemissions. More than anything else, the current shortages of power cannot be met without expanding nuclear power in the short term.
In the present situation, where public opinion is divided between pro-nuclear and ant-nuclear activists, different Governments have responded differently to the Fukushima tragedy. Germany and Switzerland were unequivocal in their decision to phase out nuclear power. Others, including Japan, the US, China and India announced investigations and innovations to reduce dangers. Those who were on the threshold of the nuclear age have quietly dropped their plans. Even some of the countries, which have pledged to stay on course, will alter their plans, slow them down and look for alternatives, particularly if the safety reviews reveal inadequacies as in the case of the US. The studies have already concluded that the US reactors cannot withstand multiple natural disasters, as it happened in Japan. China has lost some of its enthusiasm for nuclear power. In India, the mood in the establishment is cool confidence that nothing will go wrong here. Inspections and studies are pro forma as the conclusion is known. India will continue to develop nuclear power to meet its energy needs, even if there is an element of risk in it. The Prime Minister has ruled out phasing out of nuclear power, regardless of the outcome of the studies. It calls into question the purpose of the studies themselves.
There must be a third way, since committing the world to perpetual use of nuclear power is hazardous and we are in no position to switch to alternatives immediately. India should be able to visualize a world without nuclear power after 20 or 30 years. The optimum average age of a nuclear reactor is 30 years and it will not be unreasonable to phase out the reactors, including the ones being installed now in a period of 30 years. Once we establish this as an objective, the entire planning of energy in India should be revised to ensure that we have sufficient capacity to develop alternative sources of energy within that period. Scientists speculate that if India had invested its resources and time on other forms of energy, we would not have needed nuclear power at all
India was the first country to give the world the vision of a world without nuclear weapons. The point that it was an impractical idea did not deter us from sketching the various steps that would lead to global zero. After the deadline that we had set for it passed, the world has woken up to the wisdom of it. Why do we not put on our thinking caps again and draw up a plan of phasing out nuclear power in 30 years? Such a timeframe will not immediately affect our nuclear programme, including acquisition of reactors from abroad. We can commission the French reactors, if the location is acceptable to the people in the area and develop an adequate safety system for a short period, rather than for an indefinite length of time. Inevitably, we need to develop alternatives like solar and wind energy, in addition to traditional sources, which have to be tamed to protect the environment. If fusion technology or any other safe method of using the atom develops in the meantime, we shall be prepared to adopt them in place of fission.
Fukushima has roused the conscience of humanity in a way Three Mile Island and Chernobyl had not done. Faster communications and deeper knowledge of what happened there has dramatically altered the way the world looks at nuclear power. To argue that nobody has died of radiation, while thousands have perished in the raging waves and the falling bricks is to underestimate the impact of Fukushima on the minds of the people.
What India says to the Ministerial Meeting of the IAEA, when it convenes in Vienna in the third week of June, 2011 will be hugely significant. If we merely say that we will undertake inspections and make our inspectors fiercely independent and our processes transparent, we will miss an opportunity to give humanity a way to break away from fear. The choice should not be between fear of radiation and lack of development. A proposal by India to strive towards a nuclear power free world by 2040, with adequate development of alternative sources will be a major contribution to the outcome of the June conference.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
Obama Embraces the Arab Spring
T.P.Sreenivasan
President Barack Obama can never be faulted for his choice of words. His assessment of the Arab Spring and the US role in it was no exception. "Change cannot be denied", he said and proceeded to endorse the movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. Claiming to open a new chapter in American diplomacy, Obama spoke out clearly in favour of democratic change, urging the leaders of the region either to lead the transition or get out of the way. "America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia against the raw power of the dictator", he declared.
What pleased the President about the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and the demands for change in other parts of the Middle East and North Africa was that they meant rejection of the ways of Osama Bin Laden, who believed that violent extremism alone would take the Islamic world to the promised land. As Tom Friedman pointed out, Laden lived long enough to see the death of his philosophy in the Arab world. The people in the region had taken their future into their own hands and they had achieved more in six months than terrorists had accomplished in decades. In the circumstances, the rest of the world, particularly the US should readjust their policies to remain relevant.
President Obama admitted that the core interests the US had pursued in the region, such as counter terrorism, non-proliferation, free trade, security, Israeli friendship and Arab- Israeli peace had not helped to eliminate mistrust. Self determination of individuals would be as important as stability and , therefore, the US would oppose repression and support universal human rights.In dealing with specific cases, President Obama sought to find common elements in all of them, which deserved the US support. Seeking democratic change in the Arab world was an opportunity for the US.
But more importantly, President Obama recognized that politics alone did not put protesters into the streets. Though there were islands of prosperity in these countries, many had difficulty putting the food on the table. Talents were in plenty, but corruption and authoritarianism denied opportunity to young people. President Obama outlined a number of measures ranging from writing off Egypt's debt to multilateral and bilateral assistance to the countries that emerged from repressive regimes.
No speech on the Arab world could conclude without a road map for Israel and Palestine. In fact, it would have made no sense if the President had made no mention of this core issue on which the future of US- Arab relations would depend. A day before receiving Prime Minister Natenyahu in the White House, Barack Obama became the first US President to explicitly state that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. He was categorical about the unshakable US commitment to Israel's security, but the principles he laid down for an eventual solution based on Israel and Palestine existing within recognized and secure borders were unexceptionable, The plans were opposed instantly by Israel, Hamas and the Republican Party, a sure sign that Obama plans had the potential to move towards a compromise.
Like the Cairo speech two years ago, the Arab Spring speech too was an effort to build bridges with the Islamic world. Coming as it did after the elimination of Bin Laden, the speech was particularly conciliatory except in the case of Iran and Syria, which were clubbed together for supporting terrorism and repressing their own people. A heavy dose of economic measures will be welcomed by the new regimes, which have to grapple with depleted treasuries and development challenges. The President sought to justify US intervention in Libya and hinted that the US would not hesitate to step in wherever the new spirit of democracy faced resistance.
Barack Obama mentioned virtually every country, which had shown signs of unrest, but steered clear of even mentioning Saudi Arabia, an omission, which was carefully noted by analysts. But the sweeping generalisations he made about the elements of the Arab Spring cannot but apply to Saudi Arabia also. But there is no denying the fact that each situation would require a different principle and policy.
President Obama has a greater reputation as an orator rather than as a statesman. His readiness to pursue American national interests at any cost, even by initiating new wars and other forms of intervention has detracted from his messiah image he had before the election. The US foreign policy has shown no great change since Barack Obama became President. Expectations about peace breaking out on all fronts, on the basis of which President Obama was given a Nobel Prize for Peace were belied. Against such a record, the Arab Spring speech would also be read with skepticism, cynicism and even disbelief. The world will welcome the lofty ideas that have figured in the speech, but the credibility deficit will remain till the US conduct on the ground matches the President's golden vocabulary.
--
T.P.Sreenivasan
President Barack Obama can never be faulted for his choice of words. His assessment of the Arab Spring and the US role in it was no exception. "Change cannot be denied", he said and proceeded to endorse the movements in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. Claiming to open a new chapter in American diplomacy, Obama spoke out clearly in favour of democratic change, urging the leaders of the region either to lead the transition or get out of the way. "America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia against the raw power of the dictator", he declared.
What pleased the President about the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and the demands for change in other parts of the Middle East and North Africa was that they meant rejection of the ways of Osama Bin Laden, who believed that violent extremism alone would take the Islamic world to the promised land. As Tom Friedman pointed out, Laden lived long enough to see the death of his philosophy in the Arab world. The people in the region had taken their future into their own hands and they had achieved more in six months than terrorists had accomplished in decades. In the circumstances, the rest of the world, particularly the US should readjust their policies to remain relevant.
President Obama admitted that the core interests the US had pursued in the region, such as counter terrorism, non-proliferation, free trade, security, Israeli friendship and Arab- Israeli peace had not helped to eliminate mistrust. Self determination of individuals would be as important as stability and , therefore, the US would oppose repression and support universal human rights.In dealing with specific cases, President Obama sought to find common elements in all of them, which deserved the US support. Seeking democratic change in the Arab world was an opportunity for the US.
But more importantly, President Obama recognized that politics alone did not put protesters into the streets. Though there were islands of prosperity in these countries, many had difficulty putting the food on the table. Talents were in plenty, but corruption and authoritarianism denied opportunity to young people. President Obama outlined a number of measures ranging from writing off Egypt's debt to multilateral and bilateral assistance to the countries that emerged from repressive regimes.
No speech on the Arab world could conclude without a road map for Israel and Palestine. In fact, it would have made no sense if the President had made no mention of this core issue on which the future of US- Arab relations would depend. A day before receiving Prime Minister Natenyahu in the White House, Barack Obama became the first US President to explicitly state that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. He was categorical about the unshakable US commitment to Israel's security, but the principles he laid down for an eventual solution based on Israel and Palestine existing within recognized and secure borders were unexceptionable, The plans were opposed instantly by Israel, Hamas and the Republican Party, a sure sign that Obama plans had the potential to move towards a compromise.
Like the Cairo speech two years ago, the Arab Spring speech too was an effort to build bridges with the Islamic world. Coming as it did after the elimination of Bin Laden, the speech was particularly conciliatory except in the case of Iran and Syria, which were clubbed together for supporting terrorism and repressing their own people. A heavy dose of economic measures will be welcomed by the new regimes, which have to grapple with depleted treasuries and development challenges. The President sought to justify US intervention in Libya and hinted that the US would not hesitate to step in wherever the new spirit of democracy faced resistance.
Barack Obama mentioned virtually every country, which had shown signs of unrest, but steered clear of even mentioning Saudi Arabia, an omission, which was carefully noted by analysts. But the sweeping generalisations he made about the elements of the Arab Spring cannot but apply to Saudi Arabia also. But there is no denying the fact that each situation would require a different principle and policy.
President Obama has a greater reputation as an orator rather than as a statesman. His readiness to pursue American national interests at any cost, even by initiating new wars and other forms of intervention has detracted from his messiah image he had before the election. The US foreign policy has shown no great change since Barack Obama became President. Expectations about peace breaking out on all fronts, on the basis of which President Obama was given a Nobel Prize for Peace were belied. Against such a record, the Arab Spring speech would also be read with skepticism, cynicism and even disbelief. The world will welcome the lofty ideas that have figured in the speech, but the credibility deficit will remain till the US conduct on the ground matches the President's golden vocabulary.
--
Saturday, May 14, 2011
India-US Relations at Crossroads
By T.P.Sreenivasan
The killing of Osama Bin Laden came at a time when India-US relations were at a low point of the roller coaster ride to which these relations have often been compared. After the visit of President Obama, which kindled hopes of raising those relations to a higher level, it appeared as though India was distancing itself from Washington to assert its independence. The US too had other preoccupations, particularly the "Arab Spring"in which an Indian partnership was ruled out. The postponement of the strategic dialogue, India's vote on Libya in the United Nations Security Council, India's overtures to Iran and its role in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit were seen as straws in the wind. To crown it all, India announced that it had shortlisted two European fighters, ignoring American demarches at the highest level that acquisition of US fighters would contribute to the strategic relationship between the two countries.
While India has maintained that the choice of the fighters was motivated solely by the technical specifications, many strategic thinkers in the US and India felt that India had missed an opportunity to cement the strategic relationship at a time when India faced multiple threats. But an Indian-American executive of one of the firms, which unsuccessfully bid for the Indian contract for 126 Multi- Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA), was surprisingly unperturbed by the news of the Indian decision to go for one of the European fighters.He said that the US had known for some time that India was apprehensive about the US fighters because of the US involvement with Pakistan. In the event of a war with Pakistan, India would be disadvantaged by the superior capability that Pakistan might have already obtained from the US.. Moreover, there would be many linkages between the suppliers of aircraft to India and Pakistan. But he said that he was much relieved that India had not chosen the Russian aircraft. The US would gain substantial profits from the Indian deal with Europe and, therefore, he saw no reason for the new deal to have any impact on India-US relations.The joint ventures between the two countries and proposals for Indian investments would balance the loss in the aircraft deal. Even the delay in orders for nuclear reactors on account of the Nuclear Liability Bill would be of no consequence, he said.
On the contrary, the resignation of the US Ambassador to India, Tim Roemer, was clearly linked to the strenuous efforts he had put in to persuade India to purchase the planes from his country. His parting message that he was satisfied with the state of relations between the two countries did not carry conviction. His embarrassment about the revelations in Wikileaks about his assessment of the events and people in India would have also contributed to his predicament.
The full story of the postponement of Hillary Clinton's visit to India for continuing the strategic dialogue has not yet come to light. Some speculate that it was the fear of direct pressure on the MCRA deal that prompted India to seek a postponement. The visit is now scheduled to take place in July 2011.
The Nuclear Liability Bill was a big blow to the US businesses, which were poised to get a captive contract worth ten billion dollars as a direct outcome of the nuclear deal. Promises given to find a way around the liability of suppliers by elaborating rules on the bill have remained unfulfilled. The US India Business Council and other business groups must be frustrated that the heavy investments made in getting the nuclear deal through gave no returns. The Fukushima disaster has also cast its shadow on the use of nuclear power.
For the US, "the most unkindest cut of all" must be the role played by India at the BRICS summit in China. The summit sought to undermine the role of the dollar and also embraced the Chinese economic and financial agenda. India's abstention on the vote on Libya in the Security Council was a meaningless gesture against intervention, when it had nothing to gain from Gaddafi and when the Arabs and the Africans had no qualms about supporting the west. The BRICS rubbed the point in, much to the chagrin of the US and NATO. The fact that India gained little in the summit and the subsequent bilateral talks with China gave India no alibi for taking these positions. China diluted the position of the other four in BRICS on Security Council reform, making it even less supportive than the US position.
India's overtures to Iran, leading to a possible visit to Tehran by the Prime Minister must also be of concern to the US. Even in the best of times, the hoards of American think tankers, who came to Delhi had only one question to ask of India - whether India would be willing to dissuade Iran from taking the nuclear weapon route. Our standard reply that we have a civilisational link with Iran and even today, we meet a large chunk of our energy needs from Iran has never impressed them.The revival of the pipeline must be anathema to the Americans.
The US too has contributed to the decline in the relationship by seemingly unintended acts of omission and commission. Airport officials did not mean any offence to India, when in two separate and unconnected incidents, they were discourteous to two Indian envoys, but the Indian media played them up as deliberate anti-Indian moves. The treatment meted out to the Indian students, who became the victims of an education scam did not help either. President Obama's remark that the Americans will not need to go to India for cheap health care was not taken kindly in India. None of these had a any substantive content, but the cumulative effect was far from favourable to the atmospherics.
In actual fact, however, the two countries are quietly working on many issues of vital concern to them. Much more needs to be done to coordinate efforts for stability in West Asia and Africa, not to speak of the traditional areas of cooperation, such as nuclear non-proliferation, climate change, piracy and disaster management.The post -Fukushima concerns on nuclear safety is another area for joint research and effort. India has more to gain from the US than from any other country at this time. Frittering away the gains of the Bush era and the early days of Obama for the sake of appearing to be distancing ourselves from the west may hurt our interests. If the US begins to be vengeful and strike where it hurts most like technology transfer, Indian American interests, Indian education and work visas, the losses will be substantial.
The killing of Osama bin Laden is an opportunity and a challenge for India-US relations, though its importance should not be exaggerated. The elimination of the most significant symbol of international terrorism should give us reason for comfort. Though the Indian Prime Minister was not on the list of the world leaders, whom Obama called soon after his success in bringing a closure to 9/11, Dr. Manmohan Singh reached out to him in a matter of days and presumably congratulated him. He must have expressed the hope that Pakistan would now be more receptive to India's demand for bringing the culprits of 26/11 to book. The US itself has been forthcoming in revealing that ISI operatives may have been behind the Mumbai attack.
The perceived deterioration in the relations between the US and Pakistan may have no impact on India-US relations, essentially because the present phase will be temporary, if not imaginary.US-Pakistan relations will return to normal in a very short time as they have a logic and resilience going back to half a century. India cannot step into the role that Pakistan had assumed in 2001both because of the nature of our polity and our national pride.
A thought has also arisen that India should rush to normalise relations with Pakistan and be supportive to Pakistan at this difficult juncture. In fact, such a suggestion was made by some at the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They felt that India and Pakistan should form a united front against the Soviet Union to stop the intervention in Afghanistan. It may we ll have happened if Indira Gandhi had not returned to power before such a move gained currency. Any effort to befriend Pakistan at this point in misplaced sympathy will be dangerous. If anything, India should go slow in its ebngagement with Pakistan till Pakistan sets its house in order after the trauma of Abbottabad.
The best hope is that the present phase is the inevitable descent of the roller coaster before it gains momentum again to climb even higher. The imperatives of cooperation are much stronger than the impulse to appear distant from the Dhritarashtra's embrace that the US connection is considered to be..
By T.P.Sreenivasan
The killing of Osama Bin Laden came at a time when India-US relations were at a low point of the roller coaster ride to which these relations have often been compared. After the visit of President Obama, which kindled hopes of raising those relations to a higher level, it appeared as though India was distancing itself from Washington to assert its independence. The US too had other preoccupations, particularly the "Arab Spring"in which an Indian partnership was ruled out. The postponement of the strategic dialogue, India's vote on Libya in the United Nations Security Council, India's overtures to Iran and its role in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit were seen as straws in the wind. To crown it all, India announced that it had shortlisted two European fighters, ignoring American demarches at the highest level that acquisition of US fighters would contribute to the strategic relationship between the two countries.
While India has maintained that the choice of the fighters was motivated solely by the technical specifications, many strategic thinkers in the US and India felt that India had missed an opportunity to cement the strategic relationship at a time when India faced multiple threats. But an Indian-American executive of one of the firms, which unsuccessfully bid for the Indian contract for 126 Multi- Role Combat Aircraft (MRCA), was surprisingly unperturbed by the news of the Indian decision to go for one of the European fighters.He said that the US had known for some time that India was apprehensive about the US fighters because of the US involvement with Pakistan. In the event of a war with Pakistan, India would be disadvantaged by the superior capability that Pakistan might have already obtained from the US.. Moreover, there would be many linkages between the suppliers of aircraft to India and Pakistan. But he said that he was much relieved that India had not chosen the Russian aircraft. The US would gain substantial profits from the Indian deal with Europe and, therefore, he saw no reason for the new deal to have any impact on India-US relations.The joint ventures between the two countries and proposals for Indian investments would balance the loss in the aircraft deal. Even the delay in orders for nuclear reactors on account of the Nuclear Liability Bill would be of no consequence, he said.
On the contrary, the resignation of the US Ambassador to India, Tim Roemer, was clearly linked to the strenuous efforts he had put in to persuade India to purchase the planes from his country. His parting message that he was satisfied with the state of relations between the two countries did not carry conviction. His embarrassment about the revelations in Wikileaks about his assessment of the events and people in India would have also contributed to his predicament.
The full story of the postponement of Hillary Clinton's visit to India for continuing the strategic dialogue has not yet come to light. Some speculate that it was the fear of direct pressure on the MCRA deal that prompted India to seek a postponement. The visit is now scheduled to take place in July 2011.
The Nuclear Liability Bill was a big blow to the US businesses, which were poised to get a captive contract worth ten billion dollars as a direct outcome of the nuclear deal. Promises given to find a way around the liability of suppliers by elaborating rules on the bill have remained unfulfilled. The US India Business Council and other business groups must be frustrated that the heavy investments made in getting the nuclear deal through gave no returns. The Fukushima disaster has also cast its shadow on the use of nuclear power.
For the US, "the most unkindest cut of all" must be the role played by India at the BRICS summit in China. The summit sought to undermine the role of the dollar and also embraced the Chinese economic and financial agenda. India's abstention on the vote on Libya in the Security Council was a meaningless gesture against intervention, when it had nothing to gain from Gaddafi and when the Arabs and the Africans had no qualms about supporting the west. The BRICS rubbed the point in, much to the chagrin of the US and NATO. The fact that India gained little in the summit and the subsequent bilateral talks with China gave India no alibi for taking these positions. China diluted the position of the other four in BRICS on Security Council reform, making it even less supportive than the US position.
India's overtures to Iran, leading to a possible visit to Tehran by the Prime Minister must also be of concern to the US. Even in the best of times, the hoards of American think tankers, who came to Delhi had only one question to ask of India - whether India would be willing to dissuade Iran from taking the nuclear weapon route. Our standard reply that we have a civilisational link with Iran and even today, we meet a large chunk of our energy needs from Iran has never impressed them.The revival of the pipeline must be anathema to the Americans.
The US too has contributed to the decline in the relationship by seemingly unintended acts of omission and commission. Airport officials did not mean any offence to India, when in two separate and unconnected incidents, they were discourteous to two Indian envoys, but the Indian media played them up as deliberate anti-Indian moves. The treatment meted out to the Indian students, who became the victims of an education scam did not help either. President Obama's remark that the Americans will not need to go to India for cheap health care was not taken kindly in India. None of these had a any substantive content, but the cumulative effect was far from favourable to the atmospherics.
In actual fact, however, the two countries are quietly working on many issues of vital concern to them. Much more needs to be done to coordinate efforts for stability in West Asia and Africa, not to speak of the traditional areas of cooperation, such as nuclear non-proliferation, climate change, piracy and disaster management.The post -Fukushima concerns on nuclear safety is another area for joint research and effort. India has more to gain from the US than from any other country at this time. Frittering away the gains of the Bush era and the early days of Obama for the sake of appearing to be distancing ourselves from the west may hurt our interests. If the US begins to be vengeful and strike where it hurts most like technology transfer, Indian American interests, Indian education and work visas, the losses will be substantial.
The killing of Osama bin Laden is an opportunity and a challenge for India-US relations, though its importance should not be exaggerated. The elimination of the most significant symbol of international terrorism should give us reason for comfort. Though the Indian Prime Minister was not on the list of the world leaders, whom Obama called soon after his success in bringing a closure to 9/11, Dr. Manmohan Singh reached out to him in a matter of days and presumably congratulated him. He must have expressed the hope that Pakistan would now be more receptive to India's demand for bringing the culprits of 26/11 to book. The US itself has been forthcoming in revealing that ISI operatives may have been behind the Mumbai attack.
The perceived deterioration in the relations between the US and Pakistan may have no impact on India-US relations, essentially because the present phase will be temporary, if not imaginary.US-Pakistan relations will return to normal in a very short time as they have a logic and resilience going back to half a century. India cannot step into the role that Pakistan had assumed in 2001both because of the nature of our polity and our national pride.
A thought has also arisen that India should rush to normalise relations with Pakistan and be supportive to Pakistan at this difficult juncture. In fact, such a suggestion was made by some at the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They felt that India and Pakistan should form a united front against the Soviet Union to stop the intervention in Afghanistan. It may we ll have happened if Indira Gandhi had not returned to power before such a move gained currency. Any effort to befriend Pakistan at this point in misplaced sympathy will be dangerous. If anything, India should go slow in its ebngagement with Pakistan till Pakistan sets its house in order after the trauma of Abbottabad.
The best hope is that the present phase is the inevitable descent of the roller coaster before it gains momentum again to climb even higher. The imperatives of cooperation are much stronger than the impulse to appear distant from the Dhritarashtra's embrace that the US connection is considered to be..
Thursday, May 05, 2011
A Sting Operation
By T.P.Sreenivasan
A recording of the scene is still available on Youtube. President Barack Obama is in the White House, giving a serious interview on live television. A fly enters and hovers around the President, much to his annoyance. He gets distracted, tries to chase it away with his hands. The fly settles down on his knee and the President, as it befits the Supreme Commander of the armed forces of a Super Power, kills the fly with a sudden swift blow and throws the carcass on to the white carpet. The interviewer stares first at the President and then at the the fly reeling in pain in its last moments. The President resumes the interview as though nothing has happened.
My experience, though similar to Obama's, ended differently. First of all, it was not a fly, but a wasp that came into the studio as I was recording my weekly programme. I had the possibility of stopping the recording and dealing with the wasp, but I did not want to interrupt the lively conversation with my guest. When the wasp settled down on my right hand, I should have killed it with my left hand. But not being trained even in Kerala's martial arts, I decided to follow the principle of coexistence. But the wasp had not heard of such principles and did what comes naturally to him, or maybe her, a sharp sting that sent shivers into my spine. The producer must have noticed the grimace on my face, but he realised that I had no intention to ask for a cut. I proceeded to ask the next question and the next till I finished the programme. I am sure, my viewers noticed the change in my demeanor, but thought that the subject was too serious to permit a pleasant face.
The sting, I found, is in the tail as I watched my hand growing in dimension as hours passed. Remedies were suggested by everyone who saw my hand or an image on facebook posted by me to alert the world about the hazards of broadcasters. These ranged from taking an ant-histamine tablet (which is what I did on my way back from the studio) to going to a doctor immediately for an injection.. Home remedies like rubbing shallot juice, warm salt water, turmeric paste and lime juice were suggested.The most amusing advice was that I should see a doctor if swelling lasted for more than four hours, reflecting a commercial about a tablet meant for a different purpose.
Theories too were in abundance. Someone suggested that the wasp was sent by someone who had an argument with me on an election campaign recently. Another had no doubt that it was a diplomatic sting, a tit for tat for the diplomatic stings I may have inflicted on others. (He mentioned Fiji specifically) Yet another thought that my views on endosulfan may have provoked the wasp. But actually my view that the poisonous insecticide should be banned should be helpful to insects.The best description of the action of the wasp was that it was a sting operation. A touching comment was simply 'sad'. Someone even claimed responsibility for the sting and threatened to do it again, if I did not improve!
Someone recalled the scene in Kalidasa's 'Shakuntala', in which King Dushyant enters in the pretext of saving a damsel in distress, being chased by a bee. Struck by the infinite beauty of Shakuntala, he was waiting in the wings to get close to her. We know the consequences of the bee episode in the play.
All is well that ends well. I did not appear cruel to animals on the screen.The avil tablet and some shallot juice healed me and I can now play golf and even manage a Bharatanatyam mudra with my right hand.
The New Indian Express May 6,2011
By T.P.Sreenivasan
A recording of the scene is still available on Youtube. President Barack Obama is in the White House, giving a serious interview on live television. A fly enters and hovers around the President, much to his annoyance. He gets distracted, tries to chase it away with his hands. The fly settles down on his knee and the President, as it befits the Supreme Commander of the armed forces of a Super Power, kills the fly with a sudden swift blow and throws the carcass on to the white carpet. The interviewer stares first at the President and then at the the fly reeling in pain in its last moments. The President resumes the interview as though nothing has happened.
My experience, though similar to Obama's, ended differently. First of all, it was not a fly, but a wasp that came into the studio as I was recording my weekly programme. I had the possibility of stopping the recording and dealing with the wasp, but I did not want to interrupt the lively conversation with my guest. When the wasp settled down on my right hand, I should have killed it with my left hand. But not being trained even in Kerala's martial arts, I decided to follow the principle of coexistence. But the wasp had not heard of such principles and did what comes naturally to him, or maybe her, a sharp sting that sent shivers into my spine. The producer must have noticed the grimace on my face, but he realised that I had no intention to ask for a cut. I proceeded to ask the next question and the next till I finished the programme. I am sure, my viewers noticed the change in my demeanor, but thought that the subject was too serious to permit a pleasant face.
The sting, I found, is in the tail as I watched my hand growing in dimension as hours passed. Remedies were suggested by everyone who saw my hand or an image on facebook posted by me to alert the world about the hazards of broadcasters. These ranged from taking an ant-histamine tablet (which is what I did on my way back from the studio) to going to a doctor immediately for an injection.. Home remedies like rubbing shallot juice, warm salt water, turmeric paste and lime juice were suggested.The most amusing advice was that I should see a doctor if swelling lasted for more than four hours, reflecting a commercial about a tablet meant for a different purpose.
Theories too were in abundance. Someone suggested that the wasp was sent by someone who had an argument with me on an election campaign recently. Another had no doubt that it was a diplomatic sting, a tit for tat for the diplomatic stings I may have inflicted on others. (He mentioned Fiji specifically) Yet another thought that my views on endosulfan may have provoked the wasp. But actually my view that the poisonous insecticide should be banned should be helpful to insects.The best description of the action of the wasp was that it was a sting operation. A touching comment was simply 'sad'. Someone even claimed responsibility for the sting and threatened to do it again, if I did not improve!
Someone recalled the scene in Kalidasa's 'Shakuntala', in which King Dushyant enters in the pretext of saving a damsel in distress, being chased by a bee. Struck by the infinite beauty of Shakuntala, he was waiting in the wings to get close to her. We know the consequences of the bee episode in the play.
All is well that ends well. I did not appear cruel to animals on the screen.The avil tablet and some shallot juice healed me and I can now play golf and even manage a Bharatanatyam mudra with my right hand.
The New Indian Express May 6,2011
A Sting Operation
By T.P.Sreenivasan
A recording of the scene is still available on Youtube. President Barack Obama is in the White House, giving a serious interview on live television. A fly enters and hovers around the President, much to his annoyance. He gets distracted, tries to chase it away with his hands. The fly settles down on his knee and the President, as it befits the Supreme Commander of the armed forces of a Super Power, kills the fly with a sudden swift blow and throws the carcass on to the white carpet. The interviewer stares first at the President and then at the the fly reeling in pain in its last moments. The President resumes the interview as though nothing has happened.
My experience, though similar to Obama's, ended differently. First of all, it was not a fly, but a wasp that came into the studio as I was recording my weekly programme. I had the possibility of stopping the recording and dealing with the wasp, but I did not want to interrupt the lively conversation with my guest. When the wasp settled down on my right hand, I should have killed it with my left hand. But not being trained even in Kerala's martial arts, I decided to follow the principle of coexistence. But the wasp had not heard of such principles and did what comes naturally to him, or maybe her, a sharp sting that sent shivers into my spine. The producer must have noticed the grimace on my face, but he realised that I had no intention to ask for a cut. I proceeded to ask the next question and the next till I finished the programme. I am sure, my viewers noticed the change in my demeanor, but thought that the subject was too serious to permit a pleasant face.
The sting, I found, is in the tail as I watched my hand growing in dimension as hours passed. Remedies were suggested by everyone who saw my hand or an image on facebook posted by me to alert the world about the hazards of broadcasters. These ranged from taking an ant-histamine tablet (which is what I did on my way back from the studio) to going to a doctor immediately for an injection.. Home remedies like rubbing shallot juice, warm salt water, turmeric paste and lime juice were suggested.The most amusing advice was that I should see a doctor if swelling lasted for more than four hours, reflecting a commercial about a tablet meant for a different purpose.
Theories too were in abundance. Someone suggested that the wasp was sent by someone who had an argument with me on an election campaign recently. Another had no doubt that it was a diplomatic sting, a tit for tat for the diplomatic stings I may have inflicted on others. (He mentioned Fiji specifically) Yet another thought that my views on endosulfan may have provoked the wasp. But actually my view that the poisonous insecticide should be banned should be helpful to insects.The best description of the action of the wasp was that it was a sting operation. A touching comment was simply 'sad'. Someone even claimed responsibility for the sting and threatened to do it again, if I did not improve!
Someone recalled the scene in Kalidasa's 'Shakuntala', in which King Dushyant enters in the pretext of saving a damsel in distress, being chased by a bee. Struck by the infinite beauty of Shakuntala, he was waiting in the wings to get close to her. We know the consequences of the bee episode in the play.
All is well that ends well. I did not appear cruel to animals on the screen.The avil tablet and some shallot juice healed me and I can now play golf and even manage a Bharatanatyam mudra with my right hand.
The New Indian Express May 6,2011
By T.P.Sreenivasan
A recording of the scene is still available on Youtube. President Barack Obama is in the White House, giving a serious interview on live television. A fly enters and hovers around the President, much to his annoyance. He gets distracted, tries to chase it away with his hands. The fly settles down on his knee and the President, as it befits the Supreme Commander of the armed forces of a Super Power, kills the fly with a sudden swift blow and throws the carcass on to the white carpet. The interviewer stares first at the President and then at the the fly reeling in pain in its last moments. The President resumes the interview as though nothing has happened.
My experience, though similar to Obama's, ended differently. First of all, it was not a fly, but a wasp that came into the studio as I was recording my weekly programme. I had the possibility of stopping the recording and dealing with the wasp, but I did not want to interrupt the lively conversation with my guest. When the wasp settled down on my right hand, I should have killed it with my left hand. But not being trained even in Kerala's martial arts, I decided to follow the principle of coexistence. But the wasp had not heard of such principles and did what comes naturally to him, or maybe her, a sharp sting that sent shivers into my spine. The producer must have noticed the grimace on my face, but he realised that I had no intention to ask for a cut. I proceeded to ask the next question and the next till I finished the programme. I am sure, my viewers noticed the change in my demeanor, but thought that the subject was too serious to permit a pleasant face.
The sting, I found, is in the tail as I watched my hand growing in dimension as hours passed. Remedies were suggested by everyone who saw my hand or an image on facebook posted by me to alert the world about the hazards of broadcasters. These ranged from taking an ant-histamine tablet (which is what I did on my way back from the studio) to going to a doctor immediately for an injection.. Home remedies like rubbing shallot juice, warm salt water, turmeric paste and lime juice were suggested.The most amusing advice was that I should see a doctor if swelling lasted for more than four hours, reflecting a commercial about a tablet meant for a different purpose.
Theories too were in abundance. Someone suggested that the wasp was sent by someone who had an argument with me on an election campaign recently. Another had no doubt that it was a diplomatic sting, a tit for tat for the diplomatic stings I may have inflicted on others. (He mentioned Fiji specifically) Yet another thought that my views on endosulfan may have provoked the wasp. But actually my view that the poisonous insecticide should be banned should be helpful to insects.The best description of the action of the wasp was that it was a sting operation. A touching comment was simply 'sad'. Someone even claimed responsibility for the sting and threatened to do it again, if I did not improve!
Someone recalled the scene in Kalidasa's 'Shakuntala', in which King Dushyant enters in the pretext of saving a damsel in distress, being chased by a bee. Struck by the infinite beauty of Shakuntala, he was waiting in the wings to get close to her. We know the consequences of the bee episode in the play.
All is well that ends well. I did not appear cruel to animals on the screen.The avil tablet and some shallot juice healed me and I can now play golf and even manage a Bharatanatyam mudra with my right hand.
The New Indian Express May 6,2011
Implications of Osama's killing exaggerated.
By T.P.Sreenivasan
Children say the damnedest of things. They also make the wisest of statements. A Malayalam poet wrote, "Children, who cannot put words together, you are the ones, who have the vision and the knowledge of God's will." This has been proved once again, when my granddaughter, Durga's response to the news of Osama Bin Laden's death was, "Oh! I thought he was dead long ago!" Apparently,other children reacted similarly, according to facebook entries from around the globe. Then why are the adults so excited? Why are they over analyzing the impact of a death that occurred, at least figuratively, quite some time ago? Are we not exaggerating the importance of Osama's death to the US, to President Obama, to Pakistan, to international terrorism, and most of all, to India?
I do not dispute President Obama's claim that Osama was found hiding under the nose of the Pakistanis and that, in a swift and efficient operation, US soldiers killed him in a firefight, with no losses to American lives. I do not also dispute the claim that Osama was given a decent burial, with Islamic funeral rites.in the deep sea. I am sure the DNA has been preserved before the body was disposed off. But this was clearly the whirlwind which came after the wind was sewn decades ago.The world will move on,more or less in the same wayward way as before, even after his death. Osama could well have lived on without making much of a difference to the world.
There was only one logic in the timing. President Obama's reelection campaign had begun and it was time that he justified his Nobel Prize for Peace by getting out of at least one of his wars. The timing of the killing was chosen by him to register a victory and to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan after installing a hotch-potch government which would not threaten his homeland security. He may well win his second term on account of bringing Osama to justice, though public memory may not outlast any other event that may affect the verdict. Osama had become irrelevant to Al Queda except as a symbol of Jihad. The terrorist outfit will survive and regroup itself to give cause for concern to the west and others, but this was inevitable whether Osama died in his bed or killed in battle.
As for the war on terror, this is a milestone, but the road extends beyond the horizon. There are enough individuals, organisations and states, which believe in terrorism as a justifiable way of gaining the advantages that cannot be obtained by legitimate means. No reason exists for jubilation, as was seen in the streets of the US. The US and the world cannot afford to bring their guard down. The massive investments made for security around the world will still be justified as terrorists look for new and innovative methods to beat the system. In fact, one of the legacies of Osama is the suffering undergone by ordinary people at the airports and elsewhere. As someone observed rightly, the best punishment for Osama would have been to make him go through airport security day in and day out for the rest of his life.
Pakistan will not change a bit even after Osama. Someone said that Pakistan has not yet decided whether it should take cash or credit for Osama's killing. They are inclined to claim cash from the US rather than deny the US the credit for the masterly operation. It suits them to protest about violation of sovereignty and appear disgruntled, having done nothing to protect their prized possession. The whole point of protecting him was to fatten him and to hand him over to the US at the most opportune moment as Pakistan had no use for him. No one believes that Pakistan was unaware of Osama's whereabouts or the timing of the US operations. More information will become available about Pakistan's complicity and duplicity, but that will not add anything to the information the world already has, if it wants to punish Pakistan. Pakistan's friends, particularly China, will continue to nurse it as a potential guarantee against India's unbridled rise politically and economically. Nothing will change even in the US position that Pakistan should not be allowed to fail. The US does not want Pakistan either to break up or fall into the hands of fundamentalists. the US has been saying for long that India should work with those in power in Pakistan, because those who came after them would have longer beards! Osama or no Osama, Obama or no Obama, the US-Pakistan relations will remain robust. Tensions and differences of opinion will persist between them, but, in the ultimate analysis, the big brother will prevail.
India has no reason to rejoice in Osama's exit from the scene. Laskar-e-Toiba and the other outfits are nurtured not by Al Queda, but by the Pakistani intelligence and state.They will not change their spots. The hope that the world will be convinced that Pakistan was culpable for 26/11, now that it has been caught cheating the US is far-fetched. Nobody is looking for new evidence. Whether we begin the dialogue or not, the perpetrators of 26/11, including Kasab will survive one way or another. Brave words have been spoken by our hawks that we should follow the US example and take out the criminals ourselves, but there are more who say we do not have either the will or the capability to do that. Even nuclear war is considered a possibility in the event of any dirty trick. We have no lesson to learn from the Obama killing. Our enemies are better protected than the hapless, sick (and reportedly phoneless and internetless) and fragile Osama, who found his watery grave. They do not face the wrath of a super power as Osama did. India has to muddle its way through the perfidy of Pakistan, blowing hot and cold, using the carrot and the stick. The dead Osama will not influence war or peace with Pakistan, just as the living Osama did not.
Elimination of Osama was a declared objective of the war on terror. His killing was essential for the US to declare victory before beginning its withdrawal from Afghanistan. An Afghan dispensation friendly to Pakistan will more than compensate for the present loss of face for Pakistan. Sacrificing Osama is a small price to pay for such a long term gain for Pakistan. The timing of the killing of Osama may have suited the US strategy in the Afpak region and it may have executed it on its own, but Pakistan may well stand to gain by the action, whether there is already a deal or not On previous occasions, reports on Osama's death were exaggerated, but this time the implications of his death are unduly exaggerated.
By T.P.Sreenivasan
Children say the damnedest of things. They also make the wisest of statements. A Malayalam poet wrote, "Children, who cannot put words together, you are the ones, who have the vision and the knowledge of God's will." This has been proved once again, when my granddaughter, Durga's response to the news of Osama Bin Laden's death was, "Oh! I thought he was dead long ago!" Apparently,other children reacted similarly, according to facebook entries from around the globe. Then why are the adults so excited? Why are they over analyzing the impact of a death that occurred, at least figuratively, quite some time ago? Are we not exaggerating the importance of Osama's death to the US, to President Obama, to Pakistan, to international terrorism, and most of all, to India?
I do not dispute President Obama's claim that Osama was found hiding under the nose of the Pakistanis and that, in a swift and efficient operation, US soldiers killed him in a firefight, with no losses to American lives. I do not also dispute the claim that Osama was given a decent burial, with Islamic funeral rites.in the deep sea. I am sure the DNA has been preserved before the body was disposed off. But this was clearly the whirlwind which came after the wind was sewn decades ago.The world will move on,more or less in the same wayward way as before, even after his death. Osama could well have lived on without making much of a difference to the world.
There was only one logic in the timing. President Obama's reelection campaign had begun and it was time that he justified his Nobel Prize for Peace by getting out of at least one of his wars. The timing of the killing was chosen by him to register a victory and to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan after installing a hotch-potch government which would not threaten his homeland security. He may well win his second term on account of bringing Osama to justice, though public memory may not outlast any other event that may affect the verdict. Osama had become irrelevant to Al Queda except as a symbol of Jihad. The terrorist outfit will survive and regroup itself to give cause for concern to the west and others, but this was inevitable whether Osama died in his bed or killed in battle.
As for the war on terror, this is a milestone, but the road extends beyond the horizon. There are enough individuals, organisations and states, which believe in terrorism as a justifiable way of gaining the advantages that cannot be obtained by legitimate means. No reason exists for jubilation, as was seen in the streets of the US. The US and the world cannot afford to bring their guard down. The massive investments made for security around the world will still be justified as terrorists look for new and innovative methods to beat the system. In fact, one of the legacies of Osama is the suffering undergone by ordinary people at the airports and elsewhere. As someone observed rightly, the best punishment for Osama would have been to make him go through airport security day in and day out for the rest of his life.
Pakistan will not change a bit even after Osama. Someone said that Pakistan has not yet decided whether it should take cash or credit for Osama's killing. They are inclined to claim cash from the US rather than deny the US the credit for the masterly operation. It suits them to protest about violation of sovereignty and appear disgruntled, having done nothing to protect their prized possession. The whole point of protecting him was to fatten him and to hand him over to the US at the most opportune moment as Pakistan had no use for him. No one believes that Pakistan was unaware of Osama's whereabouts or the timing of the US operations. More information will become available about Pakistan's complicity and duplicity, but that will not add anything to the information the world already has, if it wants to punish Pakistan. Pakistan's friends, particularly China, will continue to nurse it as a potential guarantee against India's unbridled rise politically and economically. Nothing will change even in the US position that Pakistan should not be allowed to fail. The US does not want Pakistan either to break up or fall into the hands of fundamentalists. the US has been saying for long that India should work with those in power in Pakistan, because those who came after them would have longer beards! Osama or no Osama, Obama or no Obama, the US-Pakistan relations will remain robust. Tensions and differences of opinion will persist between them, but, in the ultimate analysis, the big brother will prevail.
India has no reason to rejoice in Osama's exit from the scene. Laskar-e-Toiba and the other outfits are nurtured not by Al Queda, but by the Pakistani intelligence and state.They will not change their spots. The hope that the world will be convinced that Pakistan was culpable for 26/11, now that it has been caught cheating the US is far-fetched. Nobody is looking for new evidence. Whether we begin the dialogue or not, the perpetrators of 26/11, including Kasab will survive one way or another. Brave words have been spoken by our hawks that we should follow the US example and take out the criminals ourselves, but there are more who say we do not have either the will or the capability to do that. Even nuclear war is considered a possibility in the event of any dirty trick. We have no lesson to learn from the Obama killing. Our enemies are better protected than the hapless, sick (and reportedly phoneless and internetless) and fragile Osama, who found his watery grave. They do not face the wrath of a super power as Osama did. India has to muddle its way through the perfidy of Pakistan, blowing hot and cold, using the carrot and the stick. The dead Osama will not influence war or peace with Pakistan, just as the living Osama did not.
Elimination of Osama was a declared objective of the war on terror. His killing was essential for the US to declare victory before beginning its withdrawal from Afghanistan. An Afghan dispensation friendly to Pakistan will more than compensate for the present loss of face for Pakistan. Sacrificing Osama is a small price to pay for such a long term gain for Pakistan. The timing of the killing of Osama may have suited the US strategy in the Afpak region and it may have executed it on its own, but Pakistan may well stand to gain by the action, whether there is already a deal or not On previous occasions, reports on Osama's death were exaggerated, but this time the implications of his death are unduly exaggerated.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Column in New Indian Express titled New Five Make Right Noise
April 27,2011
Brick By Brick- India in New Five to Assert Independence
By T.P.Sreenivasan
India appears to be building a wall between itself and the Unites States brick by brick after five years of building bridges with Washington. The BRICS summit in Sanya in China was the latest instance of the demonstration by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that his strategic partnership with the US does not preclude other coalitions of convenience.The Libya vote in the UN Security Council, friendly gestures to Iran and cricket diplomacy with Pakistan were the other signals.The BRICS summit did not advance any of India's vital interests, but provided another forum for India to assert its independent foreign policy.
Diverse as they may be, with little political glue, the BRICS states made tentative steps towards a common position not only on economic matters, but also on some sensitive political issues. China characterised it as "a defining force to shape the new international political and economic order." But the US, like Banquo's ghost, hovered around the room in Sanya and moderated and diluted the outcome. Each one of the New Five has more to gain from the US than from each other, however keen they are to find a common cause. The presence of two of the P-5 in the New Five makes it a strange mix.
Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa have more things that divide them than those that unite them. Russia and China and China and India are more adversarial than comradely.Brazil and South Africa have their own grievances against India as they had voluntarily given up their nuclear option, while India gained the best of both worlds by testing and later signing the nuclear deal with the United States. Brazil and South Africa are bitter about Chinese economic policies, which have impacted them adversely. There is no precedent to a name coined by a private financial institution becoming the nomenclature of an international economic or political grouping. The term, BRIC was coined by Goldman Sachs to characterise the phenomenon of four large and emerging economies, not to turn them into power brokers. The Chairman of Goldman Sachs has noted that the five countries do not have same interests, their wealth per head is different and their politics and philosophy are different.
Another grouping, India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) is already in existence with democracy and development goals as a platform and the emergence of BRICS is likely to weaken this useful association. As the largest developing countries with global aspirations, the three countries have a clear political and economic agenda, which must be pursued.
Although the initial steps to turn BRIC into a viable grouping were taken by Russia, China has now taken charge by first inducting South Africa and then hosting the first BRICS summit.With the addition of South Africa, BRIC not only became BRICS, but also a new reality with representation from all continents. Two of them are permanent members of the Security Council and three are non-permanent members with aspiration for permanent membership. Such a group as this cannot but command attention.
What transpired in Sanya was no less impressive. Apart from the expected call for reform of global financial and monetary institutions, the New Five decided to take law into their own hands by deciding to use their currencies for the transactions among themselves, though it will not amount to more than 1 percent of world trade. China extracted its pound of flesh by getting the five to endorse its own agenda of seeking Yuan to be in the basket of currencies for SDRs even though it is not fully convertible. China's currency revaluation, a matter of urgency for the other participants, was not on the agenda. China, however, agreed to import more value added products from the other four states. Russia gained support for its membership of the World Trade Organisation. India did not get much except vague support for Security Council reform without any mention of expansion of permanent membership, despite the fact that four out of the five are committed to it. Even the lukewarm US support for India goes beyond "comprehensive reform of the UN, including its Security Council" advocated by BRICS. As the host, China has orchestrated the outcome to its advantage.
Russia and China were in a position to veto the Libya resolution in the Security Council, authorising humanitarian intervention in Libya, but chose to abstain, thus enabling the US and NATO to have their way. South Africa had actually voted for the resolution. India and Brazil, which abstained more to distance themselves from US interventionism than to support Gaddafi, found some consolation in the group favouring a negotiated rather than a forced settlement in Libya. "We share the principle that the use of force should be avoided", they said, extending support for the efforts of the African Union.The clear signal from Sanya was that BRICS will be a pressure group within the G-20 and the Security Council to counter the US. But care was taken not to be provocative or confrontational as they have to gain much from their partnership with the US.The P-5 spirit may well remain intact even after the Sanya summit.
India found another brick for its wall by mending fences with China. India announced resumption of defence exchanges with China without a solution for the issue which prompted the suspension of the exchanges in the first place. China has not yet withdrawn its practice of issuing residents of Jammu and Kashmir "paper visa" for China. India made another concession by accepting unwritten conditions on the composition of defence delegations, which will visit China.Even the formation of a new mechanism to tackle issues arising on the border was no concession by China. If anything, it recognised the Chinese position that the border issue was too complex to be resolved in a hurry.Improvement of relations without any notable change in the Chinese assertiveness is of no value except as a signal to the United States.The Chinese encouragement to Pakistan's belligerence and its border claims remained untouched.
Like in the old days of the Non-aligned Movement, the signatories to the declaration will rush to Washington to put the best possible construction on the wording to convince the United States that they did not mean to offend its sensitivities. The old game of public declarations and private confessions will continue. But, for each member of the group, BRICS has its uses.They have to build their defences against the United States brick by brick
April 27,2011
Brick By Brick- India in New Five to Assert Independence
By T.P.Sreenivasan
India appears to be building a wall between itself and the Unites States brick by brick after five years of building bridges with Washington. The BRICS summit in Sanya in China was the latest instance of the demonstration by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that his strategic partnership with the US does not preclude other coalitions of convenience.The Libya vote in the UN Security Council, friendly gestures to Iran and cricket diplomacy with Pakistan were the other signals.The BRICS summit did not advance any of India's vital interests, but provided another forum for India to assert its independent foreign policy.
Diverse as they may be, with little political glue, the BRICS states made tentative steps towards a common position not only on economic matters, but also on some sensitive political issues. China characterised it as "a defining force to shape the new international political and economic order." But the US, like Banquo's ghost, hovered around the room in Sanya and moderated and diluted the outcome. Each one of the New Five has more to gain from the US than from each other, however keen they are to find a common cause. The presence of two of the P-5 in the New Five makes it a strange mix.
Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa have more things that divide them than those that unite them. Russia and China and China and India are more adversarial than comradely.Brazil and South Africa have their own grievances against India as they had voluntarily given up their nuclear option, while India gained the best of both worlds by testing and later signing the nuclear deal with the United States. Brazil and South Africa are bitter about Chinese economic policies, which have impacted them adversely. There is no precedent to a name coined by a private financial institution becoming the nomenclature of an international economic or political grouping. The term, BRIC was coined by Goldman Sachs to characterise the phenomenon of four large and emerging economies, not to turn them into power brokers. The Chairman of Goldman Sachs has noted that the five countries do not have same interests, their wealth per head is different and their politics and philosophy are different.
Another grouping, India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) is already in existence with democracy and development goals as a platform and the emergence of BRICS is likely to weaken this useful association. As the largest developing countries with global aspirations, the three countries have a clear political and economic agenda, which must be pursued.
Although the initial steps to turn BRIC into a viable grouping were taken by Russia, China has now taken charge by first inducting South Africa and then hosting the first BRICS summit.With the addition of South Africa, BRIC not only became BRICS, but also a new reality with representation from all continents. Two of them are permanent members of the Security Council and three are non-permanent members with aspiration for permanent membership. Such a group as this cannot but command attention.
What transpired in Sanya was no less impressive. Apart from the expected call for reform of global financial and monetary institutions, the New Five decided to take law into their own hands by deciding to use their currencies for the transactions among themselves, though it will not amount to more than 1 percent of world trade. China extracted its pound of flesh by getting the five to endorse its own agenda of seeking Yuan to be in the basket of currencies for SDRs even though it is not fully convertible. China's currency revaluation, a matter of urgency for the other participants, was not on the agenda. China, however, agreed to import more value added products from the other four states. Russia gained support for its membership of the World Trade Organisation. India did not get much except vague support for Security Council reform without any mention of expansion of permanent membership, despite the fact that four out of the five are committed to it. Even the lukewarm US support for India goes beyond "comprehensive reform of the UN, including its Security Council" advocated by BRICS. As the host, China has orchestrated the outcome to its advantage.
Russia and China were in a position to veto the Libya resolution in the Security Council, authorising humanitarian intervention in Libya, but chose to abstain, thus enabling the US and NATO to have their way. South Africa had actually voted for the resolution. India and Brazil, which abstained more to distance themselves from US interventionism than to support Gaddafi, found some consolation in the group favouring a negotiated rather than a forced settlement in Libya. "We share the principle that the use of force should be avoided", they said, extending support for the efforts of the African Union.The clear signal from Sanya was that BRICS will be a pressure group within the G-20 and the Security Council to counter the US. But care was taken not to be provocative or confrontational as they have to gain much from their partnership with the US.The P-5 spirit may well remain intact even after the Sanya summit.
India found another brick for its wall by mending fences with China. India announced resumption of defence exchanges with China without a solution for the issue which prompted the suspension of the exchanges in the first place. China has not yet withdrawn its practice of issuing residents of Jammu and Kashmir "paper visa" for China. India made another concession by accepting unwritten conditions on the composition of defence delegations, which will visit China.Even the formation of a new mechanism to tackle issues arising on the border was no concession by China. If anything, it recognised the Chinese position that the border issue was too complex to be resolved in a hurry.Improvement of relations without any notable change in the Chinese assertiveness is of no value except as a signal to the United States.The Chinese encouragement to Pakistan's belligerence and its border claims remained untouched.
Like in the old days of the Non-aligned Movement, the signatories to the declaration will rush to Washington to put the best possible construction on the wording to convince the United States that they did not mean to offend its sensitivities. The old game of public declarations and private confessions will continue. But, for each member of the group, BRICS has its uses.They have to build their defences against the United States brick by brick
Saturday, April 23, 2011
IAEA- The Way to go after Fukushima.
By T.P.Sreenivasan
A distressed Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),who helplessly witnessed a nuclear catastrophe in his own homeland with no authority or capability to help, has invited the foreign ministers of member countries to Vienna in June to devise ways and means to strengthen the safety role of the Agency. Normally, conclaves of the IAEA are gatherings of top nuclear scientists and Vienna based diplomats, who claim monopoly of wisdom on matters nuclear and insist that the greatest danger to the world arises from proliferation of nuclear weapons beyond the designated nuclear weapon powers. But this time, the invitees are policy makers, who have to think out of the box to rid the world of the scourge of nuclear accidents.Safety is too important a subject to be left to those with vested interests.
Perhaps, the June meeting may eventually be attended only by the scientists, now that the horrors of Fukushima have gone off the television screens and comfort is being sought in the thought that no one has died of radiation as against the thousands that perished on account of the earthquakes and tsunami. The two workers who were found dead in the reactors may have, after all, died of falling debris.Like the Three Mile island and Chernobyl, Fukushima will fade into history as another accident that did not need any more attention than its predecessors.But it will be unconscionable for the June meeting to just pay lip service to the safety mantra and move on with the business as usual in the comfort that God is in his heaven and all is well with the world.
The world seems to have long forgotten that the IAEA was created to harness atoms for peace safely without diverting them for military use.The subsequent emergence of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) turned the Agency into a proliferation watchdog, with much of its resources devoted to the safeguards aspect of its activities. Rightly did the Director General lament that the IAEA was not a safety watchdog and it had no choice but to be on response mode when a meltdown took place in Fukushima. It took several days before the IAEA was given any responsibility. It had no source other than the operators to tell them about the seriousness of the situation.
Prevention of accidents should be the highest priority for the IAEA. Its role should start from the designing of reactors and continue through installation and operation. Presently, such responsibilities rest with private companies, for whom profitability is paramount. Even state authorities give importance to efficiency and cost rather than safety. Apart from setting standards, the IAEA should be involved in selecting venues to ensure that the places, which are vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis are excluded. It should be mandatory to involve the IAEA at every stage and the IAEA should, in turn, be given the resources necessary to respond to requests immediately and meaningfully. Peer reviews organised under the aegis of the Agency must also be mandatory for member states to accept.
Should an accident occur, the IAEA should be instantly involved in minimizing the danger of radiation and in defending the population against its evil impact. Questions of sovereignty should be set aside as in the case of humanitarian intervention in the event of internal conflicts.To equip the IAEA to perform such functions, there should be a team at the disposal of the Director General, which can be deployed at short notice, much like the rapid deployment forces maintained by Governments.
When a group of eminent persons formulated a vision for the IAEA in 2020, the focus was on a nuclear renaissance, which seemed to be in the offing. Today, the priority is to restore confidence in the people, particularly in the vicinity of reactors. The Governments have little credibility in this matter and the IAEA should fill the gap.
The June conference should restore the balance originally envisaged between promotion of nuclear energy, safety and safeguards. The overwhelming importance given to safeguards has deprived the Agency of its safety dimension.Nuclear power will inevitably lose much of its sheen in the aftermath of Fukushima. Only after safety is ensured can the IAEA engage in promotion of nuclear power.The IAEA should become as much a watchdog of safety as it is of non-proliferation.
The world, still in the throes of the nightmare of Fukushima, looks to the Vienna conclave with hope and expectations.Its success lies in enabling the IAEA to play its role in preventing nuclear accidents and assisting countries to battle the aftermath of accidents, if any. The future of nuclear power will depend on the confidence that that the IAEA can eventually instill in humanity.
By T.P.Sreenivasan
A distressed Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),who helplessly witnessed a nuclear catastrophe in his own homeland with no authority or capability to help, has invited the foreign ministers of member countries to Vienna in June to devise ways and means to strengthen the safety role of the Agency. Normally, conclaves of the IAEA are gatherings of top nuclear scientists and Vienna based diplomats, who claim monopoly of wisdom on matters nuclear and insist that the greatest danger to the world arises from proliferation of nuclear weapons beyond the designated nuclear weapon powers. But this time, the invitees are policy makers, who have to think out of the box to rid the world of the scourge of nuclear accidents.Safety is too important a subject to be left to those with vested interests.
Perhaps, the June meeting may eventually be attended only by the scientists, now that the horrors of Fukushima have gone off the television screens and comfort is being sought in the thought that no one has died of radiation as against the thousands that perished on account of the earthquakes and tsunami. The two workers who were found dead in the reactors may have, after all, died of falling debris.Like the Three Mile island and Chernobyl, Fukushima will fade into history as another accident that did not need any more attention than its predecessors.But it will be unconscionable for the June meeting to just pay lip service to the safety mantra and move on with the business as usual in the comfort that God is in his heaven and all is well with the world.
The world seems to have long forgotten that the IAEA was created to harness atoms for peace safely without diverting them for military use.The subsequent emergence of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) turned the Agency into a proliferation watchdog, with much of its resources devoted to the safeguards aspect of its activities. Rightly did the Director General lament that the IAEA was not a safety watchdog and it had no choice but to be on response mode when a meltdown took place in Fukushima. It took several days before the IAEA was given any responsibility. It had no source other than the operators to tell them about the seriousness of the situation.
Prevention of accidents should be the highest priority for the IAEA. Its role should start from the designing of reactors and continue through installation and operation. Presently, such responsibilities rest with private companies, for whom profitability is paramount. Even state authorities give importance to efficiency and cost rather than safety. Apart from setting standards, the IAEA should be involved in selecting venues to ensure that the places, which are vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis are excluded. It should be mandatory to involve the IAEA at every stage and the IAEA should, in turn, be given the resources necessary to respond to requests immediately and meaningfully. Peer reviews organised under the aegis of the Agency must also be mandatory for member states to accept.
Should an accident occur, the IAEA should be instantly involved in minimizing the danger of radiation and in defending the population against its evil impact. Questions of sovereignty should be set aside as in the case of humanitarian intervention in the event of internal conflicts.To equip the IAEA to perform such functions, there should be a team at the disposal of the Director General, which can be deployed at short notice, much like the rapid deployment forces maintained by Governments.
When a group of eminent persons formulated a vision for the IAEA in 2020, the focus was on a nuclear renaissance, which seemed to be in the offing. Today, the priority is to restore confidence in the people, particularly in the vicinity of reactors. The Governments have little credibility in this matter and the IAEA should fill the gap.
The June conference should restore the balance originally envisaged between promotion of nuclear energy, safety and safeguards. The overwhelming importance given to safeguards has deprived the Agency of its safety dimension.Nuclear power will inevitably lose much of its sheen in the aftermath of Fukushima. Only after safety is ensured can the IAEA engage in promotion of nuclear power.The IAEA should become as much a watchdog of safety as it is of non-proliferation.
The world, still in the throes of the nightmare of Fukushima, looks to the Vienna conclave with hope and expectations.Its success lies in enabling the IAEA to play its role in preventing nuclear accidents and assisting countries to battle the aftermath of accidents, if any. The future of nuclear power will depend on the confidence that that the IAEA can eventually instill in humanity.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Nuclear Power After Fukushima
(An All India radio Talk recorded on April 18, 2011)
The Fukushima nuclear disaster could not have come at a more inopportune moment for nuclear power around the world, particularly in India. The stage was set for an exponential expansion of nuclear power as a source of energy because of the scientific evidence that use of fossil fuels was positively harmful to the environment on account of the emission of greenhouse gases. Nuclear power, on the other hand, was seen as clean, long lasting and economical, compared to the other energy sources.
The world was on the verge of a nuclear renaissance, with nearly fifty new countries opting for the generation of nuclear power. The United States, which had built no nuclear reactors for more than twenty years, began construction of new nuclear reactors. China was poised to expand its nuclear power generation dramatically. India, which had an ambitious plan for generation of nuclear power, but was hampered by shortage of uranium and a ban on exports of nuclear material to India, was ushered into an era of expansion of nuclear power when the India – US civilian nuclear deal opened the option for India to import nuclear fuel and reactors from diverse sources. India saw nuclear power as the panacea for its power shortage and development constraints.
The world was not unaware of the danger of nuclear accidents when reactors were initially designed and built. The locations of reactors were chosen with extreme care to protect them from natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis. Heavily populated areas were excluded to the extent possible for fear of radiation in the event of a meltdown. Two major nuclear accidents, one on the Three Mile Island in the United States and the other in Chernobyl in Ukraine shocked the world, but they both turned out to be on account of human error, not design or functional faults. Other minor accidents also did not reveal any fundamental flaws in the science of nuclear power generation. Nuclear reactors withstood the onslaught of earthquakes and tsunamis by shutting themselves down and maintaining cooling systems to contain the generation of heat. There was a sense of comfort that nuclear reactors were safe, as long as normal precautions were taken and strict safety standards were observed.
Fukushima shook us in to the realization that calculations with regard to the intensity of earthquakes and tsunamis could go dangerously wrong and a combination of the two natural phenomena could bring havoc to reactors and endanger humanity itself. The Fukushima earthquake was more than 9 on the Richter scale and the tsunami, which followed, was of unprecedented proportions. Though the safety systems installed in the reactors kicked in as expected, they were knocked out one after the other, leading to a meltdown with grave consequences for human, animal and plant life. The reactors shut down instantly and the cooling systems began working, but both the electric systems as well as the diesel generators were devoured by the high tsunami waves, leaving pumping massive amounts of sea water as the only option to cool the reactor. It took the heroic Japanese workers several days to contain the damage, but not before Fukushima went into history as the worst nuclear accident in history, with consequences, as yet, unknown.
Many years will pass before we realize the full extent of the damage inflicted by Fukushima, but it has shaken the faith in the minds of many about the safety of nuclear power. Whatever may be its other benefits, nuclear reactors have begun to be seen as potential killers with transnational reach. Germany instantly announced its intention to phase out nuclear power as a source of energy. So did Switzerland. Other countries announced thorough reviews of their nuclear installations to reassure themselves of foolproof safety. Construction of new reactors was delayed, pending installation of additional safety features. Regulatory authorities were strengthened and peer reviews were invited. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovered its own weaknesses in ensuring safety and called an international conference in June 2011 to take remedial action. Fears of a terrorist attack on nuclear reactors were also revived in the minds of the people in vulnerable countries. The traditional anti-nuclear countries and lobbies began a crusade against nuclear power.
The inveterate optimists, however, began searching for the silver linings on the dark clouds. They argued that deaths caused by the nuclear meltdown were much lower than those on account of fallen buildings and floods. They also took comfort in the thought that earthquakes and tsunamis of Fukushima were unprecedented in scale and might never occur again. The lessons of Fukushima would make the future reactors more safe and secure. It was also pointed out that it would not be easy for countries like France, China, the United States and India to abandon nuclear power for decades to come even if other sources of energy were developed at a fast pace. The only feasible proposition would be to strengthen safety and security to the extent possible and accept the risks.
In India, the Fukushima disaster has only caused some ripples, not waves. The official reaction is that Fukushima is a wake-up call and that all efforts should be made to make nuclear power generation safer and more secure. The scientists involved swear that the Indian facilities are safe and that the locations selected for the old and the new reactors are not prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. Further precautions will be taken by building additional features. But reconsideration of the role of nuclear energy is out of the question. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said as recently as on April 15, 2011: “I am convinced that when all is said and done, when cool headed discussions take place about the future of energy, what are the problems with coal, what are the problems with hydrocarbons, in terms of their impact on climate change, there would be no reconsideration about the role of nuclear energy.”
The question, however, is whether Fukushima will fade away into memory like its predecessors did and business will continue as usual, with minor modifications in design and construction of nuclear reactors. Will the people of India, particularly those who live in the vicinity of nuclear reactors, accept the inevitability of living in the shadow of danger? Is it conscionable for us to condemn the future generations to constant fear of another Fukushima? Should we not think in terms of making a long term plan for developing alternate sources to such an extent that we can reduce and eliminate our dependence on nuclear power? India gave to the world a vision of a nuclear weapon free world. Should we not give to the world a vision of a nuclear power free world?
In my view, these questions have to be answered after relooking at the options available to us at this critical time. No doubt, India cannot abandon its path of relying on nuclear power in the short term. But while reviewing its policy, no option should be excluded, not even the option of a carefully orchestrated exit from dependence on nuclear power. Future generations should not challenge our wisdom in dotting our coastal areas with daunting metal domes of nuclear reactors, rather than the soothing windmills that rotate in the breeze and fuel our energy generation. The victims of Fukushima will not have died in vain if the accident leads to a relook at nuclear power policy around the world to ensure generation of power without undue risk to mankind.
(An All India radio Talk recorded on April 18, 2011)
The Fukushima nuclear disaster could not have come at a more inopportune moment for nuclear power around the world, particularly in India. The stage was set for an exponential expansion of nuclear power as a source of energy because of the scientific evidence that use of fossil fuels was positively harmful to the environment on account of the emission of greenhouse gases. Nuclear power, on the other hand, was seen as clean, long lasting and economical, compared to the other energy sources.
The world was on the verge of a nuclear renaissance, with nearly fifty new countries opting for the generation of nuclear power. The United States, which had built no nuclear reactors for more than twenty years, began construction of new nuclear reactors. China was poised to expand its nuclear power generation dramatically. India, which had an ambitious plan for generation of nuclear power, but was hampered by shortage of uranium and a ban on exports of nuclear material to India, was ushered into an era of expansion of nuclear power when the India – US civilian nuclear deal opened the option for India to import nuclear fuel and reactors from diverse sources. India saw nuclear power as the panacea for its power shortage and development constraints.
The world was not unaware of the danger of nuclear accidents when reactors were initially designed and built. The locations of reactors were chosen with extreme care to protect them from natural disasters like earthquakes and tsunamis. Heavily populated areas were excluded to the extent possible for fear of radiation in the event of a meltdown. Two major nuclear accidents, one on the Three Mile Island in the United States and the other in Chernobyl in Ukraine shocked the world, but they both turned out to be on account of human error, not design or functional faults. Other minor accidents also did not reveal any fundamental flaws in the science of nuclear power generation. Nuclear reactors withstood the onslaught of earthquakes and tsunamis by shutting themselves down and maintaining cooling systems to contain the generation of heat. There was a sense of comfort that nuclear reactors were safe, as long as normal precautions were taken and strict safety standards were observed.
Fukushima shook us in to the realization that calculations with regard to the intensity of earthquakes and tsunamis could go dangerously wrong and a combination of the two natural phenomena could bring havoc to reactors and endanger humanity itself. The Fukushima earthquake was more than 9 on the Richter scale and the tsunami, which followed, was of unprecedented proportions. Though the safety systems installed in the reactors kicked in as expected, they were knocked out one after the other, leading to a meltdown with grave consequences for human, animal and plant life. The reactors shut down instantly and the cooling systems began working, but both the electric systems as well as the diesel generators were devoured by the high tsunami waves, leaving pumping massive amounts of sea water as the only option to cool the reactor. It took the heroic Japanese workers several days to contain the damage, but not before Fukushima went into history as the worst nuclear accident in history, with consequences, as yet, unknown.
Many years will pass before we realize the full extent of the damage inflicted by Fukushima, but it has shaken the faith in the minds of many about the safety of nuclear power. Whatever may be its other benefits, nuclear reactors have begun to be seen as potential killers with transnational reach. Germany instantly announced its intention to phase out nuclear power as a source of energy. So did Switzerland. Other countries announced thorough reviews of their nuclear installations to reassure themselves of foolproof safety. Construction of new reactors was delayed, pending installation of additional safety features. Regulatory authorities were strengthened and peer reviews were invited. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discovered its own weaknesses in ensuring safety and called an international conference in June 2011 to take remedial action. Fears of a terrorist attack on nuclear reactors were also revived in the minds of the people in vulnerable countries. The traditional anti-nuclear countries and lobbies began a crusade against nuclear power.
The inveterate optimists, however, began searching for the silver linings on the dark clouds. They argued that deaths caused by the nuclear meltdown were much lower than those on account of fallen buildings and floods. They also took comfort in the thought that earthquakes and tsunamis of Fukushima were unprecedented in scale and might never occur again. The lessons of Fukushima would make the future reactors more safe and secure. It was also pointed out that it would not be easy for countries like France, China, the United States and India to abandon nuclear power for decades to come even if other sources of energy were developed at a fast pace. The only feasible proposition would be to strengthen safety and security to the extent possible and accept the risks.
In India, the Fukushima disaster has only caused some ripples, not waves. The official reaction is that Fukushima is a wake-up call and that all efforts should be made to make nuclear power generation safer and more secure. The scientists involved swear that the Indian facilities are safe and that the locations selected for the old and the new reactors are not prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. Further precautions will be taken by building additional features. But reconsideration of the role of nuclear energy is out of the question. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said as recently as on April 15, 2011: “I am convinced that when all is said and done, when cool headed discussions take place about the future of energy, what are the problems with coal, what are the problems with hydrocarbons, in terms of their impact on climate change, there would be no reconsideration about the role of nuclear energy.”
The question, however, is whether Fukushima will fade away into memory like its predecessors did and business will continue as usual, with minor modifications in design and construction of nuclear reactors. Will the people of India, particularly those who live in the vicinity of nuclear reactors, accept the inevitability of living in the shadow of danger? Is it conscionable for us to condemn the future generations to constant fear of another Fukushima? Should we not think in terms of making a long term plan for developing alternate sources to such an extent that we can reduce and eliminate our dependence on nuclear power? India gave to the world a vision of a nuclear weapon free world. Should we not give to the world a vision of a nuclear power free world?
In my view, these questions have to be answered after relooking at the options available to us at this critical time. No doubt, India cannot abandon its path of relying on nuclear power in the short term. But while reviewing its policy, no option should be excluded, not even the option of a carefully orchestrated exit from dependence on nuclear power. Future generations should not challenge our wisdom in dotting our coastal areas with daunting metal domes of nuclear reactors, rather than the soothing windmills that rotate in the breeze and fuel our energy generation. The victims of Fukushima will not have died in vain if the accident leads to a relook at nuclear power policy around the world to ensure generation of power without undue risk to mankind.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Make the IAEA the Nuclear Safety Watchdog.
By T.P.Sreenivasan (From Vienna)
A glaring irony created by the United Nations is that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), its specialised body for promotion of atoms for peace has been located in the capital of a country, Austria, which is opposed to promoting nuclear power as a panacea for global energy shortage. Geneva would have been a natural choice, but Austria's offer of terms for the venue for the IAEA were attractive. The legend also has it that Homi Bhabha's love for western music was also a factor in the choice of Vienna. IAEA's gradual evolution as a nuclear watch dog and a regulatory rather than a promotional agency made it acceptable to Austria, which has been a champion of nonproliferation. The location of the IAEA in Vienna enabled Kurt Waldheim to locate an impressive array of other UN offices on the Danube.
Not only Japan,but also the IAEA is in crisis over the Fukushima disaster, which the IAEA still euphemistically calls a "nuclear accident". Safety,one of the main pillars of the Agency, is badly shaken and its credibility as a crisis management body in the event of a nuclear accident has been called into question. The open admission by its Director General, Yukio Amano, himself a Japanese, that the IAEA is not mandated to intervene either to prevent accidents or to force itself into emergency situations have exposed the chinks in the armour of the agency. The impression on the ground in Vienna is that the Agency has failed to play its role in a nuclear emergency, for which it was supposed to be prepared.
The IAEA has its own alphabetical soup to deal with nuclear emergencies. IEC (International Emergency Centre), ISSC (International Seismic Safety Centre), RANET (Response Assistance Network) and INES (International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) are only some of the acronyms being heard in Vienna these days as the emergency response capabilities, some of which were in existence right from the inception of the IAEA and others added after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents. But a study of the daily updates given on the IAEA website have little to show for action or intervention in Fukushima. The updates simply reproduce the data given by the Japanese authorities, without any interpretation or conclusion on the part of the IAEA. For radiation levels, there are reports from neighbouring countries. Among these reports was one from Singapore, which was subsequently denied. Even the down-gradation of the situation from "very serious" to "serious" is attributed to the Japanese authorities.
The daily updates from March 11, 2011 onwards show that the IAEA went by the book in dealing with an unprecedented tragedy of gigantic proportions. The Director General expressed condolences on the accident and went into "full response mode" and did virtually nothing else. Even after three full days of fast developments of alarming proportions, the the IAEA kept saying on its website that "the IAEA stands ready to provide technical assistance of any kind" The approach was cautious, sensitive and aimed at not causing alarm or loss of faith in nuclear power. IAEA could only offer "good offices" and the Japanese Government took time to assign some responsibilities to the IAEA.
A brief visit by the DG himself to Tokyo a week after the accident and his report to the IAEA Board of Governors pointed to the limitations of the IAEA in dealing with nuclear emergencies.The IAEA was given only the responsibility to take radiation measurements and the identification of Japanese needs for a future environmental monitoring programme. The Agency neither sought, nor was it asked to do any fire fighting at Fukushima.
Amano's report to the Board on March 21 was frank and forthright. "I explained that we are not a "nuclear safety watchdog" and that responsibility for nuclear safety lies with our Member States. The IAEA acts as a hub for international cooperation, helping to establish safety standards and providing expert advice on best practices. But, in contrast to the Agency's role in nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear safety measures are applied voluntarily by each individual country and our role is supportive", he said. In an atmosphere of overwhelming sympathy for Japan, the Governors did not take issue with the Director General, but it was clear that, for the IAEA, the main priority was safeguards and not safety.
The founding fathers of the IAEA was acutely aware of the safety dimension of nuclear activities and had given considerable attention to safety, together with safeguards and nuclear applications. But over the years, the call for "balance" among the activities of the IAEA became taboo as the IAEA began to stress safeguards to the detriment of its other activities. The situation became more complex after 9/11 because of the new concerns of nuclear security. The new duties of security were assigned to the safety wing of the Agency, with consequent downgrading of safety concerns.
The Three Mile Island accident as well as Chernobyl had prompted reviews of the safety dimensions of the Agency. New institutions were created, but it was left to the initiative of member states to make use of them, subject to the availability of resources.For instance, the Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) Programme set up after the Three Mile Island accident is available for peer review, but some countries, including India, have declined offers by OSART of safety inspections. The former Director General raised this issue with me on my first call on him and reminded me of the importance of India accepting OSART missions in its own interest. But we have remained adamant about not using it on the ground that we have sufficient safety measures and that we are members of the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), which was established after Chernobyl. OSART missions have been found useful by countries like France and it is time for us to reassess its value.
In response to the criticism that IAEA has been ineffective in dealing with nuclear emergencies, the IAEA has convened a High Level Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety in Vienna from 20 to 24 of June, 2011. This is indeed a timely and important initiative, bringing together foreign ministers of IAEA member states, the UN Secretary General and the heads of international organisations that are participating in the Joint Radiation Emergency Management Plan, led by the IAEA. The Director General has already indicated the direction the Conference could take on the basis that "nuclear power will remain an important and viable option for many countries as a stable and clean source of energy." The Agency's role in safety will need to be reexamined and safety standards may have to be made more stringent. The current international emergency response framework must be reassessed. A rapid deployment team of nuclear experts may be placed at the disposal of the Director General for emergency consultations and action. The possibilities are endless.
The need for the hour is to make the IAEA "the nuclear saety watchdog", a role which may be more important, in many ways, than being a non-proliferation watchdog. It should be given the authority,the resources, including technical capability to intervene expeditiously as and when necessary. For India, this is a splendid opportunity to make imaginative suggestions and offers, which go beyond our present hesitation to use the IAEA mechanisms for safety. It is not enough for the leader of the Indian delegation to the conference to place his hand on his chest and say that our nuclear facilities are safe. We should open up our reports on previous incidents in our facilities and accept expert opinion, including the services of the OSART programme. With the separation of our civilian facilities for safeguards, there should be no objection to intrusive safety inspections. A large contingent of Indian experts are already in Vienna to attend the fifth review meeting of the contracting parties to the Convention on Nuclear Safety.(April 4 to 14).The chance meeting of this body at this time should be fully exploited to test the waters before the June conference.
The IAEA is not the forum to raise issues relating to alternate sources of energy to replace nuclear power. But the reverberations for the persistent calls for the use of other forms of energy will certainly reverberate in the halls of the UN complex in Vienna.The Director General has gone on record as saying that "the worries of millions of people throughout the world about whether nuclear power is safe must be taken seriously." This is more than what some of the members of the IAEA are not prepared to say. The expectation of the nuclear renaissance will elude further as the focus shifts from appetite for energy to safety. The IAEA 2020 will be somewhat different from the picture envisaged in the report by the Eminent Persons Group, (Vision for the Future)of which I was the Executive Director. The IAEA should brace itself for change.
--
By T.P.Sreenivasan (From Vienna)
A glaring irony created by the United Nations is that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), its specialised body for promotion of atoms for peace has been located in the capital of a country, Austria, which is opposed to promoting nuclear power as a panacea for global energy shortage. Geneva would have been a natural choice, but Austria's offer of terms for the venue for the IAEA were attractive. The legend also has it that Homi Bhabha's love for western music was also a factor in the choice of Vienna. IAEA's gradual evolution as a nuclear watch dog and a regulatory rather than a promotional agency made it acceptable to Austria, which has been a champion of nonproliferation. The location of the IAEA in Vienna enabled Kurt Waldheim to locate an impressive array of other UN offices on the Danube.
Not only Japan,but also the IAEA is in crisis over the Fukushima disaster, which the IAEA still euphemistically calls a "nuclear accident". Safety,one of the main pillars of the Agency, is badly shaken and its credibility as a crisis management body in the event of a nuclear accident has been called into question. The open admission by its Director General, Yukio Amano, himself a Japanese, that the IAEA is not mandated to intervene either to prevent accidents or to force itself into emergency situations have exposed the chinks in the armour of the agency. The impression on the ground in Vienna is that the Agency has failed to play its role in a nuclear emergency, for which it was supposed to be prepared.
The IAEA has its own alphabetical soup to deal with nuclear emergencies. IEC (International Emergency Centre), ISSC (International Seismic Safety Centre), RANET (Response Assistance Network) and INES (International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale (INES) are only some of the acronyms being heard in Vienna these days as the emergency response capabilities, some of which were in existence right from the inception of the IAEA and others added after the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents. But a study of the daily updates given on the IAEA website have little to show for action or intervention in Fukushima. The updates simply reproduce the data given by the Japanese authorities, without any interpretation or conclusion on the part of the IAEA. For radiation levels, there are reports from neighbouring countries. Among these reports was one from Singapore, which was subsequently denied. Even the down-gradation of the situation from "very serious" to "serious" is attributed to the Japanese authorities.
The daily updates from March 11, 2011 onwards show that the IAEA went by the book in dealing with an unprecedented tragedy of gigantic proportions. The Director General expressed condolences on the accident and went into "full response mode" and did virtually nothing else. Even after three full days of fast developments of alarming proportions, the the IAEA kept saying on its website that "the IAEA stands ready to provide technical assistance of any kind" The approach was cautious, sensitive and aimed at not causing alarm or loss of faith in nuclear power. IAEA could only offer "good offices" and the Japanese Government took time to assign some responsibilities to the IAEA.
A brief visit by the DG himself to Tokyo a week after the accident and his report to the IAEA Board of Governors pointed to the limitations of the IAEA in dealing with nuclear emergencies.The IAEA was given only the responsibility to take radiation measurements and the identification of Japanese needs for a future environmental monitoring programme. The Agency neither sought, nor was it asked to do any fire fighting at Fukushima.
Amano's report to the Board on March 21 was frank and forthright. "I explained that we are not a "nuclear safety watchdog" and that responsibility for nuclear safety lies with our Member States. The IAEA acts as a hub for international cooperation, helping to establish safety standards and providing expert advice on best practices. But, in contrast to the Agency's role in nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear safety measures are applied voluntarily by each individual country and our role is supportive", he said. In an atmosphere of overwhelming sympathy for Japan, the Governors did not take issue with the Director General, but it was clear that, for the IAEA, the main priority was safeguards and not safety.
The founding fathers of the IAEA was acutely aware of the safety dimension of nuclear activities and had given considerable attention to safety, together with safeguards and nuclear applications. But over the years, the call for "balance" among the activities of the IAEA became taboo as the IAEA began to stress safeguards to the detriment of its other activities. The situation became more complex after 9/11 because of the new concerns of nuclear security. The new duties of security were assigned to the safety wing of the Agency, with consequent downgrading of safety concerns.
The Three Mile Island accident as well as Chernobyl had prompted reviews of the safety dimensions of the Agency. New institutions were created, but it was left to the initiative of member states to make use of them, subject to the availability of resources.For instance, the Operational Safety Review Team (OSART) Programme set up after the Three Mile Island accident is available for peer review, but some countries, including India, have declined offers by OSART of safety inspections. The former Director General raised this issue with me on my first call on him and reminded me of the importance of India accepting OSART missions in its own interest. But we have remained adamant about not using it on the ground that we have sufficient safety measures and that we are members of the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), which was established after Chernobyl. OSART missions have been found useful by countries like France and it is time for us to reassess its value.
In response to the criticism that IAEA has been ineffective in dealing with nuclear emergencies, the IAEA has convened a High Level Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety in Vienna from 20 to 24 of June, 2011. This is indeed a timely and important initiative, bringing together foreign ministers of IAEA member states, the UN Secretary General and the heads of international organisations that are participating in the Joint Radiation Emergency Management Plan, led by the IAEA. The Director General has already indicated the direction the Conference could take on the basis that "nuclear power will remain an important and viable option for many countries as a stable and clean source of energy." The Agency's role in safety will need to be reexamined and safety standards may have to be made more stringent. The current international emergency response framework must be reassessed. A rapid deployment team of nuclear experts may be placed at the disposal of the Director General for emergency consultations and action. The possibilities are endless.
The need for the hour is to make the IAEA "the nuclear saety watchdog", a role which may be more important, in many ways, than being a non-proliferation watchdog. It should be given the authority,the resources, including technical capability to intervene expeditiously as and when necessary. For India, this is a splendid opportunity to make imaginative suggestions and offers, which go beyond our present hesitation to use the IAEA mechanisms for safety. It is not enough for the leader of the Indian delegation to the conference to place his hand on his chest and say that our nuclear facilities are safe. We should open up our reports on previous incidents in our facilities and accept expert opinion, including the services of the OSART programme. With the separation of our civilian facilities for safeguards, there should be no objection to intrusive safety inspections. A large contingent of Indian experts are already in Vienna to attend the fifth review meeting of the contracting parties to the Convention on Nuclear Safety.(April 4 to 14).The chance meeting of this body at this time should be fully exploited to test the waters before the June conference.
The IAEA is not the forum to raise issues relating to alternate sources of energy to replace nuclear power. But the reverberations for the persistent calls for the use of other forms of energy will certainly reverberate in the halls of the UN complex in Vienna.The Director General has gone on record as saying that "the worries of millions of people throughout the world about whether nuclear power is safe must be taken seriously." This is more than what some of the members of the IAEA are not prepared to say. The expectation of the nuclear renaissance will elude further as the focus shifts from appetite for energy to safety. The IAEA 2020 will be somewhat different from the picture envisaged in the report by the Eminent Persons Group, (Vision for the Future)of which I was the Executive Director. The IAEA should brace itself for change.
--
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
My conversation with Nuclear Intelligence Weekly
This was in line with what nearly every other nuclear country
in the world had done, but it remained defensive. Indian
nuclear regulator the Atomic Energy Review Board (AERB)
noted that “all the reactors in India are designed to withstand
the effects of earthquake and tsunamis of specific magnitudes
which are decided based on conservative criteria.”
This was probably not enough. “The number of people
who have lost faith in nuclear power has also increased,”
retired Ambassador T.P. Sreenivasan, who is intimately
familiar with the Indian nuclear scene, told NIW. “Many are
now debating whether India should go on the path of what
the Germans have done. There are demands of that kind.”
Indeed, even Sreenivasan, despite his years of nuclear
advocacy and four years serving as India’s ambassador to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is having
doubts. “Even I’ve been saying that maybe in the long term
that it’s better to look at alternatives, and to have an action
plan that could move away from nuclear power,”
Sreenivasan said.
“What you see on television every day is very frightening,”
he continued, and “the Japanese are the most disciplined
and scientifically advanced people on the planet.”
India would be unable to respond as effectively as the
Japanese have, he said.
This was in line with what nearly every other nuclear country
in the world had done, but it remained defensive. Indian
nuclear regulator the Atomic Energy Review Board (AERB)
noted that “all the reactors in India are designed to withstand
the effects of earthquake and tsunamis of specific magnitudes
which are decided based on conservative criteria.”
This was probably not enough. “The number of people
who have lost faith in nuclear power has also increased,”
retired Ambassador T.P. Sreenivasan, who is intimately
familiar with the Indian nuclear scene, told NIW. “Many are
now debating whether India should go on the path of what
the Germans have done. There are demands of that kind.”
Indeed, even Sreenivasan, despite his years of nuclear
advocacy and four years serving as India’s ambassador to the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), is having
doubts. “Even I’ve been saying that maybe in the long term
that it’s better to look at alternatives, and to have an action
plan that could move away from nuclear power,”
Sreenivasan said.
“What you see on television every day is very frightening,”
he continued, and “the Japanese are the most disciplined
and scientifically advanced people on the planet.”
India would be unable to respond as effectively as the
Japanese have, he said.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Nuclear Disarmament Timeline Challenges
Nuclear Base Camp: The Numbers Conundrum
T.P.Sreenivasan
Ever since J.Robert Oppenheimer invoked the Bhagavad Gita to create the mother of all metaphors, “the radiance of a thousand suns” and “the destroyer of worlds”, the nuclear weapons and disarmament efforts have given us many images and metaphors. But they were all images of mutually assured destruction and inevitability of a nuclear catastrophe. There was even a telling image of the world resting comfortably under the hood of a cobra. But more recently, despair has turned into hope with the metaphor of a mountain which, though distant and high, does hold the promise of a panoramic view of a nuclear weapon free and non-violent world, if we reach the summit. The world realizes that the climb up the mountain will be slow and hazardous, but there appears to be a universal desire to make a determined effort.
The metaphor of the mountain has led to the image of a base camp, which is necessary to equip ourselves and to prepare for the climb. It is indeed a practical and necessary stage and translated into practical measures, it encourages all nations, whether they possess nuclear weapons or not, to build a staging ground. It means the establishment of intermediate goals towards disarmament on which there could be a consensus. The proponents of this concept have explained that the idea is to agree to proportional disarmament instead of smaller nuclear countries waiting till the others come down to their levels before they contemplate disarmament. They would like to craft a treaty, whereby countries, coming from different levels, could agree to work at reciprocal and proportional cuts, which would aim at all countries reaching the same lower number of weapons at a future date. William Perry characterizes the base camp as a place that would be safer than where we are today. It also serves as an organizing principle to “lead, but hedge”, in keeping with the US nuclear posture.
While the base camp concept is novel in the new context of optimism, it has been part of every plan that has been put forward in the past. Though the general and complete disarmament is the ultimate objective, giving priority to nuclear disarmament and that too through various intermediate stages is not very different from the base camp idea. The Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan of 1988 and the other practical steps put forward by various powers have contemplated intermediate stages of various descriptions. The proposal for a complete freeze was another logical step, which did not find acceptance by the nuclear weapon states. The proposed FMCT is another interim measure which is desirable and logical. We should welcome any step that reduces arsenals, strengthens non-proliferation and leads to elimination of nuclear weapons.
It is not clear, however, whether we can approach the base camp concept on the basis of numbers. Such an approach has been adopted in the case of START, but the world is skeptical about the numbers involved in the negotiations as all categories of weapons are not included in the numbers game. Transparency is highly desirable, but often absent when it comes to counting weapons. Fixing agreed numbers to reach the base camp is likely to elude us. The idea of proportionate reduction in arsenals regardless of the present size of the holdings will be anathema to those countries, which have only a minimum deterrent. India, for instance, has not revealed the number of weapons it considers necessary to have a credible minimum deterrent and the numbers are a matter of speculation. How would India participate in negotiations in reduction without revealing the numbers?
A broader approach, which takes into account the new optimism, generated by President Obama’s Prague speech, the sighting of the mountain, the encouraging signs at the latest NPT Review Conference and the Nuclear Security Summit, should move the disarmament effort forward.
India and the United States attempted precisely that at the summit level in their Joint Statement last year. The Prime Minister of India and the President of the United States agreed to join in a “strong partnership to lead global efforts for non-proliferation and universal and non-discriminatory global disarmament.” Further, “they affirmed the need for a meaningful dialogue among all states possessing nuclear weapons to build trust and confidence and for reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in international affairs and security doctrines.” The key words here are “trust and confidence” and “reducing the salience of nuclear weapons” in strategies. This will be a very good start for our journey to the base camp and beyond, but not easy to do as it requires fundamental rethinking in many capitals of the world. As the Norwegian foreign minister observed, “Every small demonstration of our willingness to move forward towards abolition make many of the intermediate obstacles more surmountable.”
The nuclear weapon states, sadly, still consider nuclear weapons important for their security and do not wish to consider a timeline for their elimination. In my view, the base camp will not be meaningful unless there is a collective commitment to a multilateral framework for negotiations within a time frame. Neither the NPT nor the CTBT has succeeded in accomplishing this. The FMCT negotiations remain stalled. An alternate route will be, as India has suggested, working on a global non-first use agreement as the first step towards delegitimisation of nuclear weapons. Hesitation on delegitimisation on the ground that it will outlaw retaliation seems unfounded as any use of the weapons will be unthinkable if there is delegitimisation. A commitment to negotiating a Nuclear Weapons Convention may also be an appropriate element of the base camp.
Changing of postures, rather than agreeing on nuclear force sizes may be a practical approach to the base camp. In the case of the two countries, which possess 95% of the nuclear warheads, numbers are relevant to build mutual confidence, but for the others, the doctrinal commitment to nuclear weapons, regardless of numbers, is the greater threat. It is no great comfort for the world to know that the nuclear weapons can now destroy the world only a dozen times, not dozens of times.
The coming to force of the START treaty on February 5 has been universally welcomed. But further progress may be stalled on account of fears of China’s growth. The focus is likely to shift to Asia, where the numbers game will be even more complex. In the Asian context, it will also be difficult to count the numbers considered necessary for minimum deterrent by different countries. Here again, a review of doctrines rather than entering a debate on numbers will have the desired impact.
The optimism that has entered the disarmament debate in recent years has not been fully justified by the latest signals from the major nuclear weapon states. The mountain and base camp images raise hope, but do not instill confidence. The urgency for nuclear disarmament, going beyond legal obligations has also been sidestepped in the process of setting up long term and intermediate stages. The time frame to reach global zero must be shorter if the world has to be safer.
Nuclear Base Camp: The Numbers Conundrum
T.P.Sreenivasan
Ever since J.Robert Oppenheimer invoked the Bhagavad Gita to create the mother of all metaphors, “the radiance of a thousand suns” and “the destroyer of worlds”, the nuclear weapons and disarmament efforts have given us many images and metaphors. But they were all images of mutually assured destruction and inevitability of a nuclear catastrophe. There was even a telling image of the world resting comfortably under the hood of a cobra. But more recently, despair has turned into hope with the metaphor of a mountain which, though distant and high, does hold the promise of a panoramic view of a nuclear weapon free and non-violent world, if we reach the summit. The world realizes that the climb up the mountain will be slow and hazardous, but there appears to be a universal desire to make a determined effort.
The metaphor of the mountain has led to the image of a base camp, which is necessary to equip ourselves and to prepare for the climb. It is indeed a practical and necessary stage and translated into practical measures, it encourages all nations, whether they possess nuclear weapons or not, to build a staging ground. It means the establishment of intermediate goals towards disarmament on which there could be a consensus. The proponents of this concept have explained that the idea is to agree to proportional disarmament instead of smaller nuclear countries waiting till the others come down to their levels before they contemplate disarmament. They would like to craft a treaty, whereby countries, coming from different levels, could agree to work at reciprocal and proportional cuts, which would aim at all countries reaching the same lower number of weapons at a future date. William Perry characterizes the base camp as a place that would be safer than where we are today. It also serves as an organizing principle to “lead, but hedge”, in keeping with the US nuclear posture.
While the base camp concept is novel in the new context of optimism, it has been part of every plan that has been put forward in the past. Though the general and complete disarmament is the ultimate objective, giving priority to nuclear disarmament and that too through various intermediate stages is not very different from the base camp idea. The Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan of 1988 and the other practical steps put forward by various powers have contemplated intermediate stages of various descriptions. The proposal for a complete freeze was another logical step, which did not find acceptance by the nuclear weapon states. The proposed FMCT is another interim measure which is desirable and logical. We should welcome any step that reduces arsenals, strengthens non-proliferation and leads to elimination of nuclear weapons.
It is not clear, however, whether we can approach the base camp concept on the basis of numbers. Such an approach has been adopted in the case of START, but the world is skeptical about the numbers involved in the negotiations as all categories of weapons are not included in the numbers game. Transparency is highly desirable, but often absent when it comes to counting weapons. Fixing agreed numbers to reach the base camp is likely to elude us. The idea of proportionate reduction in arsenals regardless of the present size of the holdings will be anathema to those countries, which have only a minimum deterrent. India, for instance, has not revealed the number of weapons it considers necessary to have a credible minimum deterrent and the numbers are a matter of speculation. How would India participate in negotiations in reduction without revealing the numbers?
A broader approach, which takes into account the new optimism, generated by President Obama’s Prague speech, the sighting of the mountain, the encouraging signs at the latest NPT Review Conference and the Nuclear Security Summit, should move the disarmament effort forward.
India and the United States attempted precisely that at the summit level in their Joint Statement last year. The Prime Minister of India and the President of the United States agreed to join in a “strong partnership to lead global efforts for non-proliferation and universal and non-discriminatory global disarmament.” Further, “they affirmed the need for a meaningful dialogue among all states possessing nuclear weapons to build trust and confidence and for reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in international affairs and security doctrines.” The key words here are “trust and confidence” and “reducing the salience of nuclear weapons” in strategies. This will be a very good start for our journey to the base camp and beyond, but not easy to do as it requires fundamental rethinking in many capitals of the world. As the Norwegian foreign minister observed, “Every small demonstration of our willingness to move forward towards abolition make many of the intermediate obstacles more surmountable.”
The nuclear weapon states, sadly, still consider nuclear weapons important for their security and do not wish to consider a timeline for their elimination. In my view, the base camp will not be meaningful unless there is a collective commitment to a multilateral framework for negotiations within a time frame. Neither the NPT nor the CTBT has succeeded in accomplishing this. The FMCT negotiations remain stalled. An alternate route will be, as India has suggested, working on a global non-first use agreement as the first step towards delegitimisation of nuclear weapons. Hesitation on delegitimisation on the ground that it will outlaw retaliation seems unfounded as any use of the weapons will be unthinkable if there is delegitimisation. A commitment to negotiating a Nuclear Weapons Convention may also be an appropriate element of the base camp.
Changing of postures, rather than agreeing on nuclear force sizes may be a practical approach to the base camp. In the case of the two countries, which possess 95% of the nuclear warheads, numbers are relevant to build mutual confidence, but for the others, the doctrinal commitment to nuclear weapons, regardless of numbers, is the greater threat. It is no great comfort for the world to know that the nuclear weapons can now destroy the world only a dozen times, not dozens of times.
The coming to force of the START treaty on February 5 has been universally welcomed. But further progress may be stalled on account of fears of China’s growth. The focus is likely to shift to Asia, where the numbers game will be even more complex. In the Asian context, it will also be difficult to count the numbers considered necessary for minimum deterrent by different countries. Here again, a review of doctrines rather than entering a debate on numbers will have the desired impact.
The optimism that has entered the disarmament debate in recent years has not been fully justified by the latest signals from the major nuclear weapon states. The mountain and base camp images raise hope, but do not instill confidence. The urgency for nuclear disarmament, going beyond legal obligations has also been sidestepped in the process of setting up long term and intermediate stages. The time frame to reach global zero must be shorter if the world has to be safer.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Reform of Global Institutions
(Remarks by Mr. T.P.Sreenivasan, former Ambassador of India at the Lunch Session of the India-UK Roundtable on February 19, 2011)
Global institutions, by their very nature, have to remain dynamic and ready for change. The mere change of membership, the entry and exit of member states, brings in changes in priorities, agenda and nature of functioning, as the sovereignty of member states continues to be the guiding principle in international relations. Changes in the global power structure, sometimes gradual and quiet and sometimes sudden and dramatic, also do force changes in global institutions. Continuous reform, therefore, is essential for global institutions to remain relevant, effective and efficient. History has shown that only resilient global bodies have survived and gained acceptance of their members.
Reforms are cyclical in nature for all global institutions and the process can never be completed once and for all. The challenges of the time impose reform to meet immediate needs and it gets formalized only subsequently to bring the practice in line with the statutes of the organizations.
The most significant restructuring of global institutions in recent years is the emergence of G-20 in the wake of the global economic crisis. The speed and efficiency with which this was accomplished should be a model for other global institutions. Even the financial institutions, which were considered extremely conservative, have begun to see changes sweeping through them, as a result of the transformation of the world economy.
The Commonwealth underwent a fundamental change when India decided to remain within it as a Republic and its agenda has also been flexible and responsive to the demands of the time.
The United Nations itself is the classic example of an international organization, which has changed beyond recognition without any change in its Charter. The agenda of the UN and its priorities today were not dreamt of by the authors of the Charter. From peacekeeping to human rights, from terrorism to climate change, the UN has taken on tasks and responsibilities not envisaged in the Charter. They are subsumed in the general concept of maintenance of international peace and security. Fight against apartheid and the concept of humanitarian intervention have amended the basic tenet of non-interference in internal affairs of states. The existence in the Charter of outdated words and phrases, which make a mockery of the present state of the world, has not inhibited the functioning of the UN.
The adoption of the ‘Agenda for Peace and the ‘Agenda for Development’ and the massive array of declarations, treaties and resolutions have made the UN richer and relevant. The recent changes in the working methods of the Security Council and the General Assembly are far reaching enough to meet the aspirations of the members for change to a great extent.
The history of the UN has shown that one thing that cannot be changed without a formal amendment to the Charter is the composition of the Security Council. The UN went through the difficult process of amendment to the Charter in 1965 to raise the number of non-permanent members from 6 to 10. We have now reached a stage when a change in the Charter is necessary to reflect the realities, not only of the enhanced membership of the UN, but also of the power structure in the world, which is dramatically different from the days after the end of the Second World War.
This is one forum where I do not need to dwell upon the need for increase in the permanent and non-permanent categories in the Security Council as I shall be preaching to the converted. The UK and India are of one mind on this issue and what we can do is to compare notes on the situation today and work out a common strategy.
India is of the view that time for concrete action has come after 30 years of discussions on this matter. On a personal note, I was at the UN as a young diplomat when India introduced the relevant agenda item in the General Assembly in 1979. Every aspect of the issue has been considered and there is now a consensus that expansion is necessary in both categories of Security Council membership. Today, we have reached text based negotiations with different formulas and numbers. What is required is political will to act here and now.
In his report ‘In Larger Freedom’, Secretary General Kofi Annan had brought down the options to two and in our view, Plan A is clearly preferable for the simple reason that creating a new category of members, as outlined in Plan B, will be clearly invidious. Plan A, which envisages the addition of 6 new permanent members and three new non-permanent members should resolve the problems of size, balance and equity.
In discussing strategy, the one thing that we have to remember is that support to one country or another, however strongly worded, will not lead to a decision. Members, preferably the permanent members, should promote a formula, like Kofi Annan’s Plan A, which has the potential of securing a two thirds majority in the General Assembly. The UK is in a position to take the lead in this regard.
The G-4 countries, Japan, Germany, Brazil and India have taken certain initiatives to speed up the process of reform forward. The group has recently decided to make an effort to establish a time frame of a year to bring about change. It would be helpful to know whether the UK and the other permanent members will go along with this time frame. If not, what is the timeframe that you have in mind? Would delaying a decision in the best interests of the UN, as China seems to suggest.
As for the identity of the new permanent members, India has held the view that criteria should be established for them. An agreement on expansion with regard to categories and members and the criteria can be established this year, it would be a major accomplishment. The difficult question of veto can, perhaps, be tackled at a later stage. The India-UK Roundtable appears to be an ideal venue for reaching an understanding on this important issue.
|
(Remarks by Mr. T.P.Sreenivasan, former Ambassador of India at the Lunch Session of the India-UK Roundtable on February 19, 2011)
Global institutions, by their very nature, have to remain dynamic and ready for change. The mere change of membership, the entry and exit of member states, brings in changes in priorities, agenda and nature of functioning, as the sovereignty of member states continues to be the guiding principle in international relations. Changes in the global power structure, sometimes gradual and quiet and sometimes sudden and dramatic, also do force changes in global institutions. Continuous reform, therefore, is essential for global institutions to remain relevant, effective and efficient. History has shown that only resilient global bodies have survived and gained acceptance of their members.
Reforms are cyclical in nature for all global institutions and the process can never be completed once and for all. The challenges of the time impose reform to meet immediate needs and it gets formalized only subsequently to bring the practice in line with the statutes of the organizations.
The most significant restructuring of global institutions in recent years is the emergence of G-20 in the wake of the global economic crisis. The speed and efficiency with which this was accomplished should be a model for other global institutions. Even the financial institutions, which were considered extremely conservative, have begun to see changes sweeping through them, as a result of the transformation of the world economy.
The Commonwealth underwent a fundamental change when India decided to remain within it as a Republic and its agenda has also been flexible and responsive to the demands of the time.
The United Nations itself is the classic example of an international organization, which has changed beyond recognition without any change in its Charter. The agenda of the UN and its priorities today were not dreamt of by the authors of the Charter. From peacekeeping to human rights, from terrorism to climate change, the UN has taken on tasks and responsibilities not envisaged in the Charter. They are subsumed in the general concept of maintenance of international peace and security. Fight against apartheid and the concept of humanitarian intervention have amended the basic tenet of non-interference in internal affairs of states. The existence in the Charter of outdated words and phrases, which make a mockery of the present state of the world, has not inhibited the functioning of the UN.
The adoption of the ‘Agenda for Peace and the ‘Agenda for Development’ and the massive array of declarations, treaties and resolutions have made the UN richer and relevant. The recent changes in the working methods of the Security Council and the General Assembly are far reaching enough to meet the aspirations of the members for change to a great extent.
The history of the UN has shown that one thing that cannot be changed without a formal amendment to the Charter is the composition of the Security Council. The UN went through the difficult process of amendment to the Charter in 1965 to raise the number of non-permanent members from 6 to 10. We have now reached a stage when a change in the Charter is necessary to reflect the realities, not only of the enhanced membership of the UN, but also of the power structure in the world, which is dramatically different from the days after the end of the Second World War.
This is one forum where I do not need to dwell upon the need for increase in the permanent and non-permanent categories in the Security Council as I shall be preaching to the converted. The UK and India are of one mind on this issue and what we can do is to compare notes on the situation today and work out a common strategy.
India is of the view that time for concrete action has come after 30 years of discussions on this matter. On a personal note, I was at the UN as a young diplomat when India introduced the relevant agenda item in the General Assembly in 1979. Every aspect of the issue has been considered and there is now a consensus that expansion is necessary in both categories of Security Council membership. Today, we have reached text based negotiations with different formulas and numbers. What is required is political will to act here and now.
In his report ‘In Larger Freedom’, Secretary General Kofi Annan had brought down the options to two and in our view, Plan A is clearly preferable for the simple reason that creating a new category of members, as outlined in Plan B, will be clearly invidious. Plan A, which envisages the addition of 6 new permanent members and three new non-permanent members should resolve the problems of size, balance and equity.
In discussing strategy, the one thing that we have to remember is that support to one country or another, however strongly worded, will not lead to a decision. Members, preferably the permanent members, should promote a formula, like Kofi Annan’s Plan A, which has the potential of securing a two thirds majority in the General Assembly. The UK is in a position to take the lead in this regard.
The G-4 countries, Japan, Germany, Brazil and India have taken certain initiatives to speed up the process of reform forward. The group has recently decided to make an effort to establish a time frame of a year to bring about change. It would be helpful to know whether the UK and the other permanent members will go along with this time frame. If not, what is the timeframe that you have in mind? Would delaying a decision in the best interests of the UN, as China seems to suggest.
As for the identity of the new permanent members, India has held the view that criteria should be established for them. An agreement on expansion with regard to categories and members and the criteria can be established this year, it would be a major accomplishment. The difficult question of veto can, perhaps, be tackled at a later stage. The India-UK Roundtable appears to be an ideal venue for reaching an understanding on this important issue.
|
Monday, February 14, 2011
UN GAFFES ARE NOT RARE
By T.P.Sreenivasan
No wonder only the Indian Ambassador realized that our Minister of External Affairs was reading the wrong speech at the UN Security Council. The others were not listening, not even the Portuguese delegate who authored the text. In the UN, delegates develop selective hearing, because no one can listen to the millions of words spoken every day. Everyone knows that the first few minutes of the speeches in the Security Council will be devoted to congratulating the present President on his assumption of the position even though it is by rotation and thanking the previous President for his accomplishments, even if he did not achieve anything during his month long presidency. The members of the Council were waiting for our Minister to come to the substance of the debate to give him some attention. If he had said anything new or original, it would not have gone unnoticed.
But what happened to the practice in our Permanent Mission in New York of one officer being assigned to every politician to keep a copy of the speech and to make sure that every word is delivered correctly? In the case of the Minister of External Affairs, this used to be done at the level of the Deputy Permanent Representative himself. How could the officers occupying the four chairs behind the Minister not know he was reading the wrong speech for full three minutes?
Has the good custom of having a heading and even a separate cover sheet for the speeches of the Ministers been abandoned? Did the Portuguese Mission also circulate the speech without a heading or a cover? We need to have answers to these questions if we have to understand where the system went wrong. Such things are too important to be left to the Minister himself. After all, Ministers have too many things on their mind to check whether the text placed before them is the right one. The topic of the debate was also a motherhood issue, development, not any controversial matter.
I have had some experience of gaffes by our political delegates misreading or mispronouncing words. One distinguished Minister of State read 'Namibia" as "Nambiar" repeatedly from the podium of the General Assembly. Unlike in the Security Council, no one sits or stands behind the speaker when he speaks and there is no way to communicate with him quickly to correct any mistake. Another delegate, this time a lady, accustomed as she was during the decolonisation days to condemnations of various policies of imperial powers, decided to "condemn" UNESCO for helping a non-self governing territory to preserve its cultural heritage. The text, of course, meant to commend the UN Agency!
Speaking of pronunciation, my Indonesian colleague, sitting next to me in the General Assembly hall asked me once what language our delegate was speaking in. Normally if a delegate does not speak in any of the six languages of the UN, someone would read the English text from the booth. My Indonesian friend could not catch the English version as our delegate was actually speaking in his version of English.
On one occasion, we had a truly sick External Affairs Minister, who should have stayed at home without taking the strain of travelling to New York. In fact, the Minister of State was also sent to New York at the same time in case the Minister needed any help. But our Minister insisted on doing everything that the Ministers were expected to do, like making speeches and holding bilateral meetings. He resented any suggestion that he might want to rest after a few meetings. That was one occasion when I had smuggled myself behind the podium with the permission of the chair when the Minister spoke to help him, if necessary. In replying to the Minister's comments on Jammu & Kashmir, a particularly vicious Pakistani delegate referred to India as "the sick man of Asia", hitting somewhat below the belt.
The same Minister left us in a quandary when he called on the Secretary General. The Minister described all the problems we were having with Pakistan and repeatedly asked the Secretary General to intervene in some way. The Secretary General, who was very keen to intervene, knew the Indian policy too well to take the request seriously. Still, we did not feel comfortable till we wrote a letter to the Secretary General, on our return to the mission, that the Minister did not really mean to request for mediation.
We also had political delegates, who wanted to change policy when they were at the UN. A very senior delegate was convinced that our policy on Afghanistan was wrong. He was inclined to support the resolutions, which criticised the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but our policy was to abstain on them. We had abstained on the main resolution already, but in one of the committees, a similar resolution was introduced. Knowing his views, I tried to send him for coffee to the delegates' lounge when the vote came up. He was not interested in shopping or sightseeing. He was also very conscientious and did not leave the chair in the committee. When a roll call vote was announced and India's name was called, he said "yes", but I shouted loudly "abstention" from behind him. The secretariat official, who knew the Indian position well, recorded our vote as abstention and our delegate was not any wiser. He was hard of hearing.
We had another delegate, who was convinced that our policy on East Timor was faulty. He was seen hobnobbing with the Portuguese delegation in the lounge occasionally. He tried to persuade me to change our position on East Timor and denounce Indonesian colonialism. I explained to him the rationale of our policy and said that he could take the matter up with Delhi, which he was not inclined to do. He watered down the language of the speech I gave him, but as long as the speech conformed to the established policy of the Government, I had no problem. I kept a close watch on him as he read the speech and, sure enough, he deliberately changed a phrase to dilute it further. The statement that the people of East Timor had already exercised their right to self-determination was changed to suggest that we were not convinced that it was so. I was astonished by his dishonesty, but without saying a word, I went to the secretariat and handed over a copy of the speech and said that it should be reflected faithfully and the electronic recording should be ignored.
The secretariat normally obliges in such cases, but it does insist occasionally on showing the original and the correction. If a delegation votes wrongly on a particular resolution, the original vote will be recorded together with the amendment submitted subsequently. In the case of the Security Council, I do not know whether the secretariat will insist on recording the pleasure of our Minister in seeing two countries of the Portuguese speaking community in the Security Council.
India is not the only country that generates such gaffes in the UN. Uganda had a big problem once when no Ugandan delegate was present in the General assembly hall. When Uganda’s name was called, someone walked to the podium and made a speech denouncing the reigning President of Uganda, Idi Amin. By the time the official delegates heard about it and rushed to the hall to challenge him, the damage was done and the news was already in the air. The whole Ugandan team was recalled and a new team was sent with instructions that the Ugandan chairs should never be left vacant. Pakistan had to contend with a politician, a member of the official delegation, who denounced the regime in Islamabad. Knowing his views, the mission had refused to print out his speech, but he managed to type it on the teleprinter. Once when the Iraqi delegate referred to the Kuwaitis as small people, the interpreter referred to them as “pygmies”. The Zaire delegate protested and the Iraqi did not know why. “Pygmies” is not a politically correct word in Zaire! A delegate was asked to repeat his vote four times till the secretariat was convinced that he was acting as instructed.
Gaffes in the UN create some red faces and send a few chuckles around, but do not harm anyone as each country’s position is known and the situation can easily be retrieved. These add some entertainment to the rest of the dull proceedings and go down to the archives, which have plenty of faux pas recorded for posterity.
--
By T.P.Sreenivasan
No wonder only the Indian Ambassador realized that our Minister of External Affairs was reading the wrong speech at the UN Security Council. The others were not listening, not even the Portuguese delegate who authored the text. In the UN, delegates develop selective hearing, because no one can listen to the millions of words spoken every day. Everyone knows that the first few minutes of the speeches in the Security Council will be devoted to congratulating the present President on his assumption of the position even though it is by rotation and thanking the previous President for his accomplishments, even if he did not achieve anything during his month long presidency. The members of the Council were waiting for our Minister to come to the substance of the debate to give him some attention. If he had said anything new or original, it would not have gone unnoticed.
But what happened to the practice in our Permanent Mission in New York of one officer being assigned to every politician to keep a copy of the speech and to make sure that every word is delivered correctly? In the case of the Minister of External Affairs, this used to be done at the level of the Deputy Permanent Representative himself. How could the officers occupying the four chairs behind the Minister not know he was reading the wrong speech for full three minutes?
Has the good custom of having a heading and even a separate cover sheet for the speeches of the Ministers been abandoned? Did the Portuguese Mission also circulate the speech without a heading or a cover? We need to have answers to these questions if we have to understand where the system went wrong. Such things are too important to be left to the Minister himself. After all, Ministers have too many things on their mind to check whether the text placed before them is the right one. The topic of the debate was also a motherhood issue, development, not any controversial matter.
I have had some experience of gaffes by our political delegates misreading or mispronouncing words. One distinguished Minister of State read 'Namibia" as "Nambiar" repeatedly from the podium of the General Assembly. Unlike in the Security Council, no one sits or stands behind the speaker when he speaks and there is no way to communicate with him quickly to correct any mistake. Another delegate, this time a lady, accustomed as she was during the decolonisation days to condemnations of various policies of imperial powers, decided to "condemn" UNESCO for helping a non-self governing territory to preserve its cultural heritage. The text, of course, meant to commend the UN Agency!
Speaking of pronunciation, my Indonesian colleague, sitting next to me in the General Assembly hall asked me once what language our delegate was speaking in. Normally if a delegate does not speak in any of the six languages of the UN, someone would read the English text from the booth. My Indonesian friend could not catch the English version as our delegate was actually speaking in his version of English.
On one occasion, we had a truly sick External Affairs Minister, who should have stayed at home without taking the strain of travelling to New York. In fact, the Minister of State was also sent to New York at the same time in case the Minister needed any help. But our Minister insisted on doing everything that the Ministers were expected to do, like making speeches and holding bilateral meetings. He resented any suggestion that he might want to rest after a few meetings. That was one occasion when I had smuggled myself behind the podium with the permission of the chair when the Minister spoke to help him, if necessary. In replying to the Minister's comments on Jammu & Kashmir, a particularly vicious Pakistani delegate referred to India as "the sick man of Asia", hitting somewhat below the belt.
The same Minister left us in a quandary when he called on the Secretary General. The Minister described all the problems we were having with Pakistan and repeatedly asked the Secretary General to intervene in some way. The Secretary General, who was very keen to intervene, knew the Indian policy too well to take the request seriously. Still, we did not feel comfortable till we wrote a letter to the Secretary General, on our return to the mission, that the Minister did not really mean to request for mediation.
We also had political delegates, who wanted to change policy when they were at the UN. A very senior delegate was convinced that our policy on Afghanistan was wrong. He was inclined to support the resolutions, which criticised the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but our policy was to abstain on them. We had abstained on the main resolution already, but in one of the committees, a similar resolution was introduced. Knowing his views, I tried to send him for coffee to the delegates' lounge when the vote came up. He was not interested in shopping or sightseeing. He was also very conscientious and did not leave the chair in the committee. When a roll call vote was announced and India's name was called, he said "yes", but I shouted loudly "abstention" from behind him. The secretariat official, who knew the Indian position well, recorded our vote as abstention and our delegate was not any wiser. He was hard of hearing.
We had another delegate, who was convinced that our policy on East Timor was faulty. He was seen hobnobbing with the Portuguese delegation in the lounge occasionally. He tried to persuade me to change our position on East Timor and denounce Indonesian colonialism. I explained to him the rationale of our policy and said that he could take the matter up with Delhi, which he was not inclined to do. He watered down the language of the speech I gave him, but as long as the speech conformed to the established policy of the Government, I had no problem. I kept a close watch on him as he read the speech and, sure enough, he deliberately changed a phrase to dilute it further. The statement that the people of East Timor had already exercised their right to self-determination was changed to suggest that we were not convinced that it was so. I was astonished by his dishonesty, but without saying a word, I went to the secretariat and handed over a copy of the speech and said that it should be reflected faithfully and the electronic recording should be ignored.
The secretariat normally obliges in such cases, but it does insist occasionally on showing the original and the correction. If a delegation votes wrongly on a particular resolution, the original vote will be recorded together with the amendment submitted subsequently. In the case of the Security Council, I do not know whether the secretariat will insist on recording the pleasure of our Minister in seeing two countries of the Portuguese speaking community in the Security Council.
India is not the only country that generates such gaffes in the UN. Uganda had a big problem once when no Ugandan delegate was present in the General assembly hall. When Uganda’s name was called, someone walked to the podium and made a speech denouncing the reigning President of Uganda, Idi Amin. By the time the official delegates heard about it and rushed to the hall to challenge him, the damage was done and the news was already in the air. The whole Ugandan team was recalled and a new team was sent with instructions that the Ugandan chairs should never be left vacant. Pakistan had to contend with a politician, a member of the official delegation, who denounced the regime in Islamabad. Knowing his views, the mission had refused to print out his speech, but he managed to type it on the teleprinter. Once when the Iraqi delegate referred to the Kuwaitis as small people, the interpreter referred to them as “pygmies”. The Zaire delegate protested and the Iraqi did not know why. “Pygmies” is not a politically correct word in Zaire! A delegate was asked to repeat his vote four times till the secretariat was convinced that he was acting as instructed.
Gaffes in the UN create some red faces and send a few chuckles around, but do not harm anyone as each country’s position is known and the situation can easily be retrieved. These add some entertainment to the rest of the dull proceedings and go down to the archives, which have plenty of faux pas recorded for posterity.
--
Thursday, January 27, 2011
A Wedding to Remember
My brother-in –law, Mohan and his wife, Latha, were in Indianapolis last May on a significant mission. Their daughter, Prarthana (‘Papu’ for us) a budding film director, who had already won a prize for her student production, chose to marry her friend from her institute, Edward Timpe. They went to convey not only their own blessings, but of the entire family to the couple and to meet Edward’s family. My son, Sreenath and his daughter, Durga, were at hand to celebrate the happy occasion. It was a matter of joy for all of us that Prathana had found her life partner.
It was really hectic for Mohan, Latha and the rest of the family ever since, planning and executing a grand wedding in a matter of 9 months. Shopping seemed endless as Latha, with her sisters, Madhu and Shanti, travelled to Delhi, Jaipur and other cities to hunt for the best for the children and the guests. Deepa and Sharu, two avid shoppers in the family, provided local expertise. Lekha was on her own hunt for clothes for herself and the rest of the family and for the best gift for Prarthana.
The first sign of the fruition of their efforts came when the invitation cards for the various events came in a golden box with goodies inside. Anyone, who received the box, could not have resisted the invitation. It must have been hard to choose the right people for the right events, though some of us received the entire package. Lekha and I set aside four days, Jan 22 to 25, 2011 and returned early from the US to get ready for the event. Lekha was busy before our trip to the US and after, handing out invitations to the large group of relatives and friends. Radhika and Hari also helped out. Mohan and Latha came to Thiruvananthapuram to invite some important guests. Many of them, including Princess Aswathy Thirunal. made the journey to Chennai to be part of the celebration.
The first event was a magnificent Chinese dinner at ‘Mainland China’ hosted by Latha’s youngest sister, Shanti and her globe- trotting husband, Ashok Kumar. This was within the family and the bridegroom’s party, consisting of Edward himself and his parents, were introduced to the family. They endeared themselves to everyone with their simple, but sophisticated ways. Till Ed met Prarthana, India was to them just the first two syllables of Indiana! They were travelling outside the US for the first time, but they did not seem to suffer from culture shock. The conservative “Indianaians” had no problem merging with Indians of three generations. The gifts that they brought from Indiana gladdened hearts all around.
The Mehendi Day the next day was primarily for women to get dressed for the wedding, to make merry and to celebrate the last day of Prarthana as a single girl. Artists adorned the palms of women with henna and the women were seen walking around with hands raised to get the henna dry. Dancing came naturally and as the men joined, there was a riot of colours in Hotel Park as magicians, tarot card readers, portrait painters entertained. Colourful bangles were available to adorn the slender female hands. The feast was but a harbinger of many more to come in the next two days.
The day of the wedding, January 24, also the wedding anniversary day of Mohan and Latha, started early when we drove at daybreak to the Shirdi Temple in the outskirts of Chennai for the ‘mangalsutra’ ceremony. In traditional Kerala clothes, Ed tied the ‘thali’ on his bride’s neck with Gopika’s help, perhaps the most important ceremony of a Nair wedding. The rest of the short ceremony ordained by the Nair community took place in a large hall, to the accompaniment, not only of the mandated ‘nadaswaram’, but also the lively ‘chenda’, the masterly percussion instrument of Kerala. The backdrop of the ceremony was the facade of a Kerala temple. The thirty-course sadya on plantain leaves completed the wedding ceremony with an endless line of well wishers lining up to greet the couple.
Those who missed the morning event and some of us who did not want to miss any event assembled for a grand dinner that evening. The bride and groom and the family were in new clothes, lined up against a new backdrop. Between the two events, the Who’s Who in Chennai was covered. We spotted Deputy Chief Minister Stalin, with machine gun wielding black cats, P. Suseela and S.Janaki, the legendary singers, Elayaraja and M.Jayachandran, music directors, Sujatha and Vijay Jesudas, the singers and many others.
The scene shifted to the Radisson Resort in Mahabalipuram for the grand finale on January 25, a gala dinner hosted by Vicky, the bride’s only brother. The youth took over the show, with toasts, singing and dancing. A video presentation showed the bride and bridegroom as they grew from tiny tots to adulthood. Speeches by elders were full of sentiments and love. I said that I was making up for not being present at Mohan’s wedding more than 30 years ago. I mentioned that it was appropriate that the bridegroom for the first international wedding in the family had come from the only super power. Prarthana had done more for India-US relations in a couple of years than what I could through diplomacy over ten years. I said that my son and grand daughter, who went to Indianapolis to meet Ed’s family, had reported that the Timpe family was a great asset. The cake, the food, the décor and the music were without blemish. It was past midnight when the tempo of the music reached feverish pitch and the young took over the dance floor and the elders took leave.
Presiding over the entire proceedings from the day one to the climax was the the bride’s grandfather, maestro M.S.Viswanathan, who strode the southern Indian film music scene like a colossus for half a century, and his wife. They had tears of joy in their eyes as they came to terms with the first granddaughter bidding goodbye. Mohan and Latha, who were so engrossed in making sure that everything went well, perhaps had no time to think of the distant home their daughter had acquired. The bridegroom and his parents, the only people in the bridegroom’s party, appeared to be enjoying the pomp and show of an Indian wedding, without having to worry about doing much, except to play their roles in the choreography. The absence of a self-important and demanding bridegroom’s party must be the dream of parents of every Indian bride!
For us, the bonus was catching up with youngsters in the family, whom we had met some years ago when they were much younger. Some of them had become adults and had their own families. As we boarded the flight for home after a hectic four days of feasting and bonding, the overwhelming thought was one of fulfillment that we were part of a joyous event of bringing together two cultures, two families and two souls in love.
My brother-in –law, Mohan and his wife, Latha, were in Indianapolis last May on a significant mission. Their daughter, Prarthana (‘Papu’ for us) a budding film director, who had already won a prize for her student production, chose to marry her friend from her institute, Edward Timpe. They went to convey not only their own blessings, but of the entire family to the couple and to meet Edward’s family. My son, Sreenath and his daughter, Durga, were at hand to celebrate the happy occasion. It was a matter of joy for all of us that Prathana had found her life partner.
It was really hectic for Mohan, Latha and the rest of the family ever since, planning and executing a grand wedding in a matter of 9 months. Shopping seemed endless as Latha, with her sisters, Madhu and Shanti, travelled to Delhi, Jaipur and other cities to hunt for the best for the children and the guests. Deepa and Sharu, two avid shoppers in the family, provided local expertise. Lekha was on her own hunt for clothes for herself and the rest of the family and for the best gift for Prarthana.
The first sign of the fruition of their efforts came when the invitation cards for the various events came in a golden box with goodies inside. Anyone, who received the box, could not have resisted the invitation. It must have been hard to choose the right people for the right events, though some of us received the entire package. Lekha and I set aside four days, Jan 22 to 25, 2011 and returned early from the US to get ready for the event. Lekha was busy before our trip to the US and after, handing out invitations to the large group of relatives and friends. Radhika and Hari also helped out. Mohan and Latha came to Thiruvananthapuram to invite some important guests. Many of them, including Princess Aswathy Thirunal. made the journey to Chennai to be part of the celebration.
The first event was a magnificent Chinese dinner at ‘Mainland China’ hosted by Latha’s youngest sister, Shanti and her globe- trotting husband, Ashok Kumar. This was within the family and the bridegroom’s party, consisting of Edward himself and his parents, were introduced to the family. They endeared themselves to everyone with their simple, but sophisticated ways. Till Ed met Prarthana, India was to them just the first two syllables of Indiana! They were travelling outside the US for the first time, but they did not seem to suffer from culture shock. The conservative “Indianaians” had no problem merging with Indians of three generations. The gifts that they brought from Indiana gladdened hearts all around.
The Mehendi Day the next day was primarily for women to get dressed for the wedding, to make merry and to celebrate the last day of Prarthana as a single girl. Artists adorned the palms of women with henna and the women were seen walking around with hands raised to get the henna dry. Dancing came naturally and as the men joined, there was a riot of colours in Hotel Park as magicians, tarot card readers, portrait painters entertained. Colourful bangles were available to adorn the slender female hands. The feast was but a harbinger of many more to come in the next two days.
The day of the wedding, January 24, also the wedding anniversary day of Mohan and Latha, started early when we drove at daybreak to the Shirdi Temple in the outskirts of Chennai for the ‘mangalsutra’ ceremony. In traditional Kerala clothes, Ed tied the ‘thali’ on his bride’s neck with Gopika’s help, perhaps the most important ceremony of a Nair wedding. The rest of the short ceremony ordained by the Nair community took place in a large hall, to the accompaniment, not only of the mandated ‘nadaswaram’, but also the lively ‘chenda’, the masterly percussion instrument of Kerala. The backdrop of the ceremony was the facade of a Kerala temple. The thirty-course sadya on plantain leaves completed the wedding ceremony with an endless line of well wishers lining up to greet the couple.
Those who missed the morning event and some of us who did not want to miss any event assembled for a grand dinner that evening. The bride and groom and the family were in new clothes, lined up against a new backdrop. Between the two events, the Who’s Who in Chennai was covered. We spotted Deputy Chief Minister Stalin, with machine gun wielding black cats, P. Suseela and S.Janaki, the legendary singers, Elayaraja and M.Jayachandran, music directors, Sujatha and Vijay Jesudas, the singers and many others.
The scene shifted to the Radisson Resort in Mahabalipuram for the grand finale on January 25, a gala dinner hosted by Vicky, the bride’s only brother. The youth took over the show, with toasts, singing and dancing. A video presentation showed the bride and bridegroom as they grew from tiny tots to adulthood. Speeches by elders were full of sentiments and love. I said that I was making up for not being present at Mohan’s wedding more than 30 years ago. I mentioned that it was appropriate that the bridegroom for the first international wedding in the family had come from the only super power. Prarthana had done more for India-US relations in a couple of years than what I could through diplomacy over ten years. I said that my son and grand daughter, who went to Indianapolis to meet Ed’s family, had reported that the Timpe family was a great asset. The cake, the food, the décor and the music were without blemish. It was past midnight when the tempo of the music reached feverish pitch and the young took over the dance floor and the elders took leave.
Presiding over the entire proceedings from the day one to the climax was the the bride’s grandfather, maestro M.S.Viswanathan, who strode the southern Indian film music scene like a colossus for half a century, and his wife. They had tears of joy in their eyes as they came to terms with the first granddaughter bidding goodbye. Mohan and Latha, who were so engrossed in making sure that everything went well, perhaps had no time to think of the distant home their daughter had acquired. The bridegroom and his parents, the only people in the bridegroom’s party, appeared to be enjoying the pomp and show of an Indian wedding, without having to worry about doing much, except to play their roles in the choreography. The absence of a self-important and demanding bridegroom’s party must be the dream of parents of every Indian bride!
For us, the bonus was catching up with youngsters in the family, whom we had met some years ago when they were much younger. Some of them had become adults and had their own families. As we boarded the flight for home after a hectic four days of feasting and bonding, the overwhelming thought was one of fulfillment that we were part of a joyous event of bringing together two cultures, two families and two souls in love.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
India's Smart Power in the US
January 19, 2011 19:59 IST
As India's [ Images ] involvement in the growth of the US deepens, the search for the soul of India gains momentum, says T P Sreenivasan.
Fareed Zakaria's The Post-American World may well be in the making as the East rises and the West declines. But New York is still vibrant and lively, majestic and magical. It has not lost its colour and noise, its variety and verve. Kishore Mahbubani's (the leading thinker on Asian and world affairs and professor at the National University of Singapore) comment that going from New York to New Delhi [ Images ] is like going from a funeral to a wedding seems to be an overstatement.
President Obama [ Images ] may have brought business deals and jobs from India, but what is in evidence everywhere is the Indian smart power. It is palpable not only in the traditional 'Little Indias' in different cities, but in mainstream newspapers, Ivy League universities, and the boardrooms of American companies. Most news channels have Indian anchors and most newspapers have Indian bylines. Indian authors, who write on India, get bought by major publishing houses.
Travel in the US in winter is hazardous even in the best of times. We missed flights, stayed indoors for three days as a snow storm consumed Manhattan and sprinted across five concourses at Atlanta airport to make it to the departure gate at midnight when the monorail came to a grinding halt.
The mayor of New York was taken to task for not cleaning up the roads on time. The snow played havoc with the subway system and yellow cabs disappeared from the streets when they were wanted most. But New York seemed to have recovered from the worst of its recession woes.
India is very much a part of the recovery of the US. The gifts that President Obama brought back from India do not tell the whole story.
New York is a happening place whether it is frozen cold or steaming hot. A peep into the control room of a CNN live show, featuring the media star Anderson Cooper, is enough to know the zest that goes into television production here. In the electronic maze of the control room are multiple men and women glued to television and computer screens, performing specialised functions which a single individual may be required to do in an Indian studio.
Cooper has about 40 people working for him in his production team -- this is for a single, nightly one-hour show. But his stardom does not keep Cooper from being as charming in personal conversations as he is on camera. He recalled his visits to India and said that India was an exciting place to cover. It was nice to see the walls and screens of the CNN office feature its Indian stars, Fareed Zakaria [ Images ] and Dr Sanjay Gupta.
Stars aren't just on television in America; the best chefs are celebrities, too. Manhattan's proud Indian fusion restaurant, Tabla, with its legendary Goan chef, Floyd Cardoz, closed its doors at the end of 2010. Its innovative Indian cuisine had held New Yorkers spellbound for ten years. But the owners of the restaurant found it harder after the recession to fill its massive dining rooms night after night. But I am sure Cardoz will not be wasted in the city that loves its Indian haute cuisine.
An equally resplendent, expensive Indian restaurant, Junoon, has opened its doors just around the corner from where Tabla thrived. Vikas Khanna, a young chef from Amritsar [ Images ], who began cooking at the age of eleven, has become the talk of the town.
The owner of Junoon, Rajesh Bhardwaj, originally from the Taj group, whose Cafe Spice chain is popular with New Yorkers, seemed confident that the US economy was on its way to full recovery and invested in a first-class gourmet place for Indian food. And just last week, Chef Hemant Mathur, part of the widely-acclaimed Devi with Suvir Saran, has opened another high-end Indian eatery, Tulsi.
Talking of the Taj group and the Tatas, it was an experience to walk into the Pierre Hotel on Fifth Avenue, the place I spent my first day in New York back in 1979, then famous for having been Nixon's campaign headquarters.
Today, it is a Taj establishment with special Indian decor in many suites. Anand Giridharadas of The New York Times launched his India Calling, An Intimate Portrait of a Nation's Remaking at the hotel's Rajput suite. His launching his book at a Tata enterprise in New York in the presence of his parents had its own story to tell. His father had left a Tata establishment many years ago in pursuit of the American dream, but now Tatas had become part of the American dream, the story that Giridharadas tells in his book in his own inimitable way.
Giridharadas tells the familiar story of the Indian miracle from the point of a returning native to whom India is an enigma wrapped up in mystery. But the style is refreshing and his keen eye for detail makes it enthralling reading. Living in India and reporting on a country he had to understand first and analyse it for the West, makes his book a must-read.
But like any number of foreign correspondents, Giridharadas spends too much time pondering over India's contradictions than its promises. He uses the technique of comparing what he heard about three generations of Giridharidases to the real people who met in India to explore modern India's dreams, ambition, pride, anger and love. The fault of this methodology is evident, but the book is an intimate account of his encounters.
The growth of literature on India by Indian and American authors, which began in earnest at the turn of the century, continues steadily. US bookstores are filled with new fiction and nonfiction about India and about other topics by Indians. They include familiar names -- Salman Rushdie [ Images ] (Luka and the Fire of Life), William Dalrymple (Nine Lives), Parag Khanna (How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance) -- as well as newcomers: Shilpi Somaya Gowda (Secret Daughter).
Meanwhile, presiding over the entire US publishing industry is its most powerful editor and impresario, Sonny Mehta, editor-in-chief of Alfred A Knopf. While I was there, the news came that Mehta, the man who had earlier bought Bill Clinton's [ Images ] memoirs for $10 million and Pope John Paul II's for $8.5 million, has also clinched a deal with Julian Assange of Wikileaks fame.
One of the books that Mehta personally championed last year, Cutting for Stone by Dr Abraham Verghese, has been on the NYT bestseller list for 50 straight weeks. Mehta is the son of Ambassador Amrik Mehta, one of my predecessors in Vienna [ Images ].
Business with India is very much on the minds even of immigration officers. Among the intriguing questions that an immigration agent of Thai origin asked me on my arrival in Atlanta from a short trip to Montego Bay was whether India was purchasing defence equipment from Atlanta.
While the other members of the family moved past the immigration with ease, the immigration officer suddenly got interested in a bundle of five diplomatic passports I passed to him as the US visa was on the oldest one. He began examining every page, reading out the names of countries I had visited in the last 10 years.
Then he began asking me political questions, which were of no relevance to my visit to the US. "Why did India accept Partition?" he asked with the curiosity of a research scholar. I was not in a mood to recount the history of the subcontinent and mumbled something about the colonial legacy.
Then came the interesting question about purchase of military aircraft. Apparently, he was referring to F-16s, which Lockheed Martin manufactures in Atlanta. He also asked about my views on China! My mind was more on my connecting flight I was sure to miss than on the future of China. I was relieved to see him stamping my passport.
An American friend saw a pattern of harassment of Indian diplomats in the questioning of the immigration official, having heard recently about the experiences of other diplomats. Perhaps, the days of diplomats breezing through immigration and customs lines are over in the US.
Reports that certain countries might be issuing diplomatic passports at a price must have alerted the Americans to the danger of terrorists masquerading as diplomats. But the question on F-16s lingered in my mind.
I am not sure if there are Indians building F-16s, but Indians continue to play a major role in US business. Two of the most powerful CEOs in New York are Pepsico's Indira Nooyi [ Images ] (named by Fortune magazine for the fifth year in a row to the top of its '50 most powerful women' list) and Vikram Pandit of Citigroup (who has successfully brought the bank back from the depths of the economic meltdown), not to speak of many other Indian business wizards at different levels in hundreds of US firms.
As India's involvement in the growth of the US deepens, the search for the soul of India gains momentum. India's smart power gets projected in the US in very many ways. The effort of Indian public diplomacy in the US should be to accentuate the positive elements.
T P Sreenivasan is a former ambassador of India to the United Nations, Vienna, and a former Governor for India at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. For
January 19, 2011 19:59 IST
As India's [ Images ] involvement in the growth of the US deepens, the search for the soul of India gains momentum, says T P Sreenivasan.
Fareed Zakaria's The Post-American World may well be in the making as the East rises and the West declines. But New York is still vibrant and lively, majestic and magical. It has not lost its colour and noise, its variety and verve. Kishore Mahbubani's (the leading thinker on Asian and world affairs and professor at the National University of Singapore) comment that going from New York to New Delhi [ Images ] is like going from a funeral to a wedding seems to be an overstatement.
President Obama [ Images ] may have brought business deals and jobs from India, but what is in evidence everywhere is the Indian smart power. It is palpable not only in the traditional 'Little Indias' in different cities, but in mainstream newspapers, Ivy League universities, and the boardrooms of American companies. Most news channels have Indian anchors and most newspapers have Indian bylines. Indian authors, who write on India, get bought by major publishing houses.
Travel in the US in winter is hazardous even in the best of times. We missed flights, stayed indoors for three days as a snow storm consumed Manhattan and sprinted across five concourses at Atlanta airport to make it to the departure gate at midnight when the monorail came to a grinding halt.
The mayor of New York was taken to task for not cleaning up the roads on time. The snow played havoc with the subway system and yellow cabs disappeared from the streets when they were wanted most. But New York seemed to have recovered from the worst of its recession woes.
India is very much a part of the recovery of the US. The gifts that President Obama brought back from India do not tell the whole story.
New York is a happening place whether it is frozen cold or steaming hot. A peep into the control room of a CNN live show, featuring the media star Anderson Cooper, is enough to know the zest that goes into television production here. In the electronic maze of the control room are multiple men and women glued to television and computer screens, performing specialised functions which a single individual may be required to do in an Indian studio.
Cooper has about 40 people working for him in his production team -- this is for a single, nightly one-hour show. But his stardom does not keep Cooper from being as charming in personal conversations as he is on camera. He recalled his visits to India and said that India was an exciting place to cover. It was nice to see the walls and screens of the CNN office feature its Indian stars, Fareed Zakaria [ Images ] and Dr Sanjay Gupta.
Stars aren't just on television in America; the best chefs are celebrities, too. Manhattan's proud Indian fusion restaurant, Tabla, with its legendary Goan chef, Floyd Cardoz, closed its doors at the end of 2010. Its innovative Indian cuisine had held New Yorkers spellbound for ten years. But the owners of the restaurant found it harder after the recession to fill its massive dining rooms night after night. But I am sure Cardoz will not be wasted in the city that loves its Indian haute cuisine.
An equally resplendent, expensive Indian restaurant, Junoon, has opened its doors just around the corner from where Tabla thrived. Vikas Khanna, a young chef from Amritsar [ Images ], who began cooking at the age of eleven, has become the talk of the town.
The owner of Junoon, Rajesh Bhardwaj, originally from the Taj group, whose Cafe Spice chain is popular with New Yorkers, seemed confident that the US economy was on its way to full recovery and invested in a first-class gourmet place for Indian food. And just last week, Chef Hemant Mathur, part of the widely-acclaimed Devi with Suvir Saran, has opened another high-end Indian eatery, Tulsi.
Talking of the Taj group and the Tatas, it was an experience to walk into the Pierre Hotel on Fifth Avenue, the place I spent my first day in New York back in 1979, then famous for having been Nixon's campaign headquarters.
Today, it is a Taj establishment with special Indian decor in many suites. Anand Giridharadas of The New York Times launched his India Calling, An Intimate Portrait of a Nation's Remaking at the hotel's Rajput suite. His launching his book at a Tata enterprise in New York in the presence of his parents had its own story to tell. His father had left a Tata establishment many years ago in pursuit of the American dream, but now Tatas had become part of the American dream, the story that Giridharadas tells in his book in his own inimitable way.
Giridharadas tells the familiar story of the Indian miracle from the point of a returning native to whom India is an enigma wrapped up in mystery. But the style is refreshing and his keen eye for detail makes it enthralling reading. Living in India and reporting on a country he had to understand first and analyse it for the West, makes his book a must-read.
But like any number of foreign correspondents, Giridharadas spends too much time pondering over India's contradictions than its promises. He uses the technique of comparing what he heard about three generations of Giridharidases to the real people who met in India to explore modern India's dreams, ambition, pride, anger and love. The fault of this methodology is evident, but the book is an intimate account of his encounters.
The growth of literature on India by Indian and American authors, which began in earnest at the turn of the century, continues steadily. US bookstores are filled with new fiction and nonfiction about India and about other topics by Indians. They include familiar names -- Salman Rushdie [ Images ] (Luka and the Fire of Life), William Dalrymple (Nine Lives), Parag Khanna (How to Run the World: Charting a Course to the Next Renaissance) -- as well as newcomers: Shilpi Somaya Gowda (Secret Daughter).
Meanwhile, presiding over the entire US publishing industry is its most powerful editor and impresario, Sonny Mehta, editor-in-chief of Alfred A Knopf. While I was there, the news came that Mehta, the man who had earlier bought Bill Clinton's [ Images ] memoirs for $10 million and Pope John Paul II's for $8.5 million, has also clinched a deal with Julian Assange of Wikileaks fame.
One of the books that Mehta personally championed last year, Cutting for Stone by Dr Abraham Verghese, has been on the NYT bestseller list for 50 straight weeks. Mehta is the son of Ambassador Amrik Mehta, one of my predecessors in Vienna [ Images ].
Business with India is very much on the minds even of immigration officers. Among the intriguing questions that an immigration agent of Thai origin asked me on my arrival in Atlanta from a short trip to Montego Bay was whether India was purchasing defence equipment from Atlanta.
While the other members of the family moved past the immigration with ease, the immigration officer suddenly got interested in a bundle of five diplomatic passports I passed to him as the US visa was on the oldest one. He began examining every page, reading out the names of countries I had visited in the last 10 years.
Then he began asking me political questions, which were of no relevance to my visit to the US. "Why did India accept Partition?" he asked with the curiosity of a research scholar. I was not in a mood to recount the history of the subcontinent and mumbled something about the colonial legacy.
Then came the interesting question about purchase of military aircraft. Apparently, he was referring to F-16s, which Lockheed Martin manufactures in Atlanta. He also asked about my views on China! My mind was more on my connecting flight I was sure to miss than on the future of China. I was relieved to see him stamping my passport.
An American friend saw a pattern of harassment of Indian diplomats in the questioning of the immigration official, having heard recently about the experiences of other diplomats. Perhaps, the days of diplomats breezing through immigration and customs lines are over in the US.
Reports that certain countries might be issuing diplomatic passports at a price must have alerted the Americans to the danger of terrorists masquerading as diplomats. But the question on F-16s lingered in my mind.
I am not sure if there are Indians building F-16s, but Indians continue to play a major role in US business. Two of the most powerful CEOs in New York are Pepsico's Indira Nooyi [ Images ] (named by Fortune magazine for the fifth year in a row to the top of its '50 most powerful women' list) and Vikram Pandit of Citigroup (who has successfully brought the bank back from the depths of the economic meltdown), not to speak of many other Indian business wizards at different levels in hundreds of US firms.
As India's involvement in the growth of the US deepens, the search for the soul of India gains momentum. India's smart power gets projected in the US in very many ways. The effort of Indian public diplomacy in the US should be to accentuate the positive elements.
T P Sreenivasan is a former ambassador of India to the United Nations, Vienna, and a former Governor for India at the International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna. For
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
