Iran & America: Interaction wasted

The politics between Iran and USA has been making news for some time. But, for me what seems to be a wasted interaction is the visit and speech of the Iranian President to a US university. The intolerance of the US academia as represented by the speech of the head of an academic institution, an university at that towards a head of a state, after having invited him to give a speech is lowest form of insult one can think of. In a country founded on the freedom of expression, it is a sign of reigning intolerance, obsessive self-image and utter lack of knowledge of political protocol, social etiquette and common sense.

Herewith reproduced two reports:
1. The US response to the Iranian President's speech in their University and
2. A letter from the heads of Iranian universities to the US University

1. What's he doing here, ask Americans

Rasheeda Bhagat, New York, Sept. 26

Most Americans couldn’t even swallow the fact that the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has been allowed to come to New York to address a session of the United Nations General Assembly.

His request to visit Ground Zero to lay a wreath was firmly turned down on security grounds, and there is a bitter debate raging on why the Columbia University should have bothered, or rather, dared, to extend an invitation to the “obnoxious man, whose government is raging a proxy war against the US in Iraq by supplying arms that are being used to kill our sons”.

This is the argument being heard on all TV channels and newspapers where the ‘experts’ being interviewed are pouring a series of abuses on the Iranian President.

Newt Gingrich, former Speaker, who was interviewed by a TV channel did not mince his words in criticising the man “who had American blood on his hands”.

Others called him a monster, belligerent, provocative, bellicose and ‘pure evil’. Columbia President Lee Bollinger, under a lot of flak for extending an invitation to Ahmedinejad, was quite hostile as he introduced his guest to a packed hall on Monday, and criticised his policy towards Israel and his denial that the Holocaust had happened.

“When you come to a place like this it makes you quite simply ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated,” he said.

But the man under fire remained unfazed through most of this speech but did mention later in his address how he had been subjected “to a wave of insults”.

The Iranian leader was both booed and applauded, as two groups of students clashed over his visit. Predictably, in his address, Ahmedinijad provoked the audience by saying that if the “root causes” of 9/11 were examined – “why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved” –, it would help “fix the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq”.

Obviously, all this was too much to take for a country deeply anguished and bitterly resentful of 9/11.

When asked at Columbia University about the repression of homosexuals in his country, the visitor denied that there were any gays in Iran and added that America has homosexuals, not Iran! This was galling enough for American TV channels to run footage of two blindfolded teenage gay boys about to be hanged in Iran. Repression of women’s rights in Iran was another issue over which he was grilled.

On Tuesday the Iranian President made a defiant speech at the UN General Assembly where he declared “closed” the debate over Iran’s nuclear power, described the UN sanctions against his country illegal and termed the permanent members of the Security Council “arrogant” and “bullying”.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/09/27/stories/2007092751172400.htm

2. Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions

http://www.farsnews.com/English/newstext.php?nn=8606300370

TEHRAN (Fars News Agency)- Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian universities and research centers, in a letter addressed to their counterpart in the US, Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger's insulting words against the Iranian nation and president and invited him to provide responses to 10 questions by Iranian academics and intellectuals.

The following is the full text of the letter:

Mr. Lee Bollinger, Columbia University President

We, the professors and heads of universities and research institutions in Tehran, hereby announce our displeasure and protest at your impolite remarks prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent speech at Columbia University.

We would like to inform you that President Ahmadinejad was elected directly by the Iranian people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in which almost all of the country's political parties and groups participated. To assess the quality and nature of these elections you may refer to US news reports on the poll dated June 2005.

Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization and culture is deeply shameful.

Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech.

Your remarks about our country included unsubstantiated accusations that were the product of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of your claims result from misunderstandings that can be clarified through dialogue and further research.

During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a number of your questions and those of students. We are prepared to answer any remaining questions in a scientific, open and direct debate.

You asked the president approximately ten questions. Allow us to ask you ten of our own questions in the hope that your response will help clear the atmosphere of misunderstanding and distrust between our two countries and reveal the truth.

1- Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr.
Ahmadinejad from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the principle of freedom of speech?

2- Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow Iran's national government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah's dictatorship?

3- Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own people?

4- Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it oppose Iran's proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a general referendum?

5- Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you justify the Bush administration's efforts to disrupt investigations concerning the September 11 attacks?

6- Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization
(MKO) despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why does the US refuse to allow Iran's current government to act against the MKO's main base in Iraq?

7- Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?

8- Why do America's closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?

9- Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than Israel?

10- Why is the US displeased with Iran's agreement with the IAEA and why does it openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the nuclear issue under international law?

Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the Iranian nation and government.

You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their guests.

World Bank Charged with Serious Violations of Democracy, Human Rights and Soverignty - Indepedent People's Tribunal findings

PRESS RELEASE 25 September 2007, New Delhi

World Bank Officials Refuse to be Held Accountable

'TRIBUNAL CHARGES BANK WITH SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOVEREIGNTY'

New Delhi: The four day Independent Peoples Tribunal (IPT) on the World Bank in India concluded here today hearing numerous depositions indicting the Bank's policy and project interventions in India. Over six hundred people from communities, social movements, research institutes, NGOs and universities attended the proceedings. The Tribunal, supported by the Jawaharlal University's Teachers Association and Students' Union was held in the university premises.

The IPT invited the World Bank two weeks ago and while they did agree to make a presentation responding to some of the evidence, they failed to show up despite provision of adequate space and time by the organisers. They stated on their website that they had taken this decision because they are not accountable to the Tribunal process. We must record our shock at their blatant disregard of any need to be accountable to civil society and to a Jury comprising retired justices of the Supreme and High Courts as well as leading writers, academics, religious leaders and activists.

In its preliminary findings, the IPT observed the Bank had an undue and disturbingly negative influence in shaping India's national policies disproportionate to its contribution, financial or otherwise.

While India is the world's largest single cumulative recipient of World Bank assistance, with lending totaling about $60 billion (Rs. 2,40,000 crores) since 1944, current annual borrowing amounts to less than 1% of the country's GDP. The loans, however, have been used as leverage to bring about important policy changes and impose conditionalities in areas such as governance reform, health, education, electricity, water and environment- many of these with obvious political and social consequences. The loans also legitimize substantial additional funding from a diversity of bilateral and multilateral donors such as the Asian Development Bank and Department for International Development (DFID-UK). The Bank's loans have caused extensive social and environmental harm from mass displacement in the Narmada valley to loss of livelihoods of traditional fishworkers in places such as Barwani.

It was noted that such overbearing influence on India's policy making was in violation of the World Bank's own Rules of Association, which mandate it to be an apolitical institution that should not interfere in political processes of any member country. Further, the IPT depositions stated that the presence of former Bank officials in senior government positions was unacceptable and involved conflicts of interest.

UNDERMINING DEMOCRACY:

Vice Chairman of the Kerala State Planning Board Professor Prabhat Patnaik in his deposition cited the example of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (NURM), which is a World Bank designed project. In the Kerala NURM project, the state government, he said, was being forced to accept a conditionality to reduce stamp duties to 5% from the earlier 15-17%. To avail a loan of about 1000 crores, Kerala would lose up to Rs.7000 crores of government revenue.

Vinay Baindur of the Bangalore based Collaborative for the Advancement of Studies in Urbanism (CASUMM) showed evidence of how the Karnataka Economic Restructuring Loan (KERL) resulted in the conversion of a state government and its economy into a corporatised entity meant to generate funds for "private sector and enterprise development". 'The $250 million loan resulted in far reaching changes; the closure/privatisation of the public sector, nearly two lakh permanent employees were forced to take Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) payments.

Further, the restructuring process led to a steep rise in farmer suicides; many of those who committed suicide did so because they were unable to pay the arrears in power costs that were suddenly slapped on them on account of power tariff hikes. "The withdrawal of subsidies for agriculture led to a sharp rise in the costs of cultivation", argued Baindur in his deposition.

Jury member and scientist Meher Engineer said that he found the depositions on how the Bank forced inappropriate technology on India such as incinerators especially damning. 'Given the well researched evidence that I have heard it is hard to imagine any role for the World Bank in the environment sector, he said. 'The Bank is pro-rich, pro-urban and anti-environment', he concluded.

The IPT was organized by an inclusive platform consisting of over 60 national and local groups (see list below). Activists, academicians, policy analysts and project affected communities presented evidence against the World Bank in over 26 sectors from 21-24 September. Jury members included historian Romila Thapar, writer Arundhati Roy, activist Aruna Roy, former Supreme Court Justice P B Sawant, former Finance Secretary S P Shukla, former Water Secretary Ramaswamy Iyer, scientist Meher Engineer, economist Amit Bhaduri, Thai spiritual leader Sulak Sivaraksa and Mexican economist Alejandro Nadal amongst others.

WORLD BANK AND GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MISSING IN ACTION:

But in response to the depositions the Bank posted a Q&A document on its India home page. In the document, the Bank makes the outrageous claim that, "The World Bank definitely has not recommended the privatization of water supply services in India". It is particularly worrisome that the Bank has to repeat a series of untruths and not own responsibility for the extensive harms they have caused.

In a sign of convergence with the Bank, the Government of India also failed to send even a single representative to the event, despite personal invitations, emails and faxes being sent 2 weeks in advance to several Government officials at all ministries that borrow money from the World Bank.

PUSHING FOR ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION:

In the 1990s, 20-30% of World Bank loans in India went to the energy sector. Orissa had the dubious distinction of being the first state to receive World Bank loans for restructuring the sector. Sreekumar N, from the Pune based Prayas Energy Group argued that based on World Bank advice, Orissa spent upto Rs.306 crores for foreign consultants, ignoring local expertise. The consultants recommended the privatisation of distribution and the American firm AES that took over distribution in the central zone behaved in a high handed manner and ultimately exited the state in 2001.

BANKS TOXIC COLONIALISM:

Nityanand Jayaraman of the Chennai based Corporate Accountability Desk in his desposition before the jury said, 'The Bank is perpetrating toxic colonialism by funding discredited and polluting technology interventions'. As evidence he presented cases where the Bank has promoted the setting up of more than 88 Common Effluent Treatment Plants, more than 90 percent of which were shown to have failed to meet environmental norms by the Central Pollution Control Board.

JUST THE BEGINNING:

Wilfred D' Costa, General Secretary of the Indian Social Action Forum(INSAF) one of the convening groups of the IPT said, 'The tribunal has been useful since it has seen a convergence of social movements, unions, academicians, researchers and struggle groups from across the country. Our next steps would be to use this platform to create a broad based political struggle against neo-liberalism and work towards an India without institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank'.

For more information contact the IPT secretariat at secretariat@worldbanktribunal.org and +91-9820039557

CONVENORS and ADVISORS

All India Bank Employees Association o All India Trade Union Congress o Alternatives o Alternative Law Forum o Prof. Arun Kumar o Arunachal Citizen's Rights o Asia Pacific Movement for Debt & Development o Banwari Lal Sharma o Biraj Patnaik o C Rammanohar Reddy o Centre for Education and Communication o Chhotanagpur Adivasi Seva Samiti o Collaborative for the Advancement of Studies in Urbanism through Mixed Media o Corporate Accountability Desk o DICE o Prof. Deepak Nayyar o E.A.S Sharma o Equations o Food First Information and Action Network [FIAN] o Focus on the Global South o Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security o Human Rights Law Network o Indian Social Action Forum[INSAF] o Intercultural Resources o Jawed Naqvi o Jan Swasthya Abhiyan o Jharkhand Mines Area Co-ordination Committee o Jubilee South o K.G. Kannabiran o Kalpana Kannabiran o Kalpavriksh Environment Action Group o Kalyani Menon Sen o Karen Coelho o Kavaljit Singh o Kavita Srivastava o Kisan Sangarsh Samiti o Leo Saldanha o Lokayan o Lok Shakti Abhiyan o Lok Sangharsh Morcha o M Vijayabhaskar o Manthan Adhyayan Kendra o Michael Goldman o Mihir Desai o Dr. N Raghuram o Narasimha Reddy o Narmada Bachao Andolan o National Alliance of People's Movements o National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights o National Campaign for People's Right to Information o National Committee for the Protection of Natural Resources o National Conference of Dalit Organisations o National Confederation of Officers Association o National Hawkers' Federation o Neil Tangri o PEACE o Parivartan o People's Campaign for a Common School System o Plachimada Solidarity Committee o Praful Bidwaio Prashant Bhushan o Prayas o Sanjay Parikho Sathi-CEHAT o Satya Sagar o Shalmali Guttal o Shetkari Sangathana o South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People o Subrata o Sudhir Patnaik o Urban Research Centre o Vikas Adhyayan Kendra o Vijay Paranjype o Vinay Baindur

In Collaboration With Jawaharlal Nehru University Teacher's Association [JNUTA] and Jawaharlal Nehru University Student's Union [JNUSU]

More on Indo-US Nuclear Deal"

With the government agreeing to the commie demand and set-up some commission, here is something I read online that was rather neat, from one of the Communist leaders. As a non-television watcher I might of missed Sitaram Yechuri, a regular in televisions I know, but, in this online posting he sounds acceptable:

In 2006, 3.9 gw of nuclear power was generated, 3 per cent of India's total power generation. In the most optimistic scenario, after the operationalisation of this deal, this would grow, at best, to 20 gw by 2016, or just over 6 per cent of the projected generation.
Further, is nuclear power cost-effective? On the contrary, it is the most expensive option. As compared to coal, it would be one-and-a-half times more expensive. Compared with gas, it is twice as expensive. So is the case with hydro-electricity.

Given the abundance of coal reserves in India, the Planning Commission estimates that thermal energy would dominate power generation in India. As far as hydro-electricity is concerned, given the potential of nearly 150 gw, only 33 gw has been installed as of 2006. In addition, over 55,000 MW could be imported from Nepal and Bhutan. The tapping of such huge hydro-potential will not only augment our energy capacities at half the cost of nuclear energy, but will also tame these rivers, which regularly consume the lives of thousands. This year's floods according to the United Nations, are 'unprecedented' in human memory.
Thus, the government's argument that the Indo-US nuclear deal is to augment our energy resources sounds untenable. Huge commercial orders running into thousands of crores of rupees for the purchase of nuclear reactors would be placed on the US. The profit bonanza to multinational corporations is there for all to see with the attendant benefits to sections of corporate India.
Recollect that for more than three decades the West has not installed new nuclear power reactors. Is India then actually going in for this deal to bolster US economic interests? If the same amount of resources were to be spent on generating power through hydro, thermal, gas, clean non-renewable and solar electricity, India's energy augmentation would be many times higher. Thus, the nuclear deal not only exposes India to greater
vulnerability, it drains a huge amount of our scarce resources.

Apart from drawing India into the US strategic military alliances in the region like the forthcoming joint military exercises with the US, Japan, Australia and Singapore, and the effort at pressurising India's foreign
policy positions, this deal does not even guarantee full and complete access to civilian nuclear technology as assured by the Prime Minister in the Rajya Sabha. In fact, the 123 agreement forbids the transfer of dual-use
technologies. The assurances of uninterrupted fuel supplies also break down if the 123 agreement is terminated. The 123 itself explicitly states that the national laws will prevail upon termination, meaning, the Hyde Act. India would be subjected to international safeguards in perpetuity even after the 123 is terminated.

That is sound stuff and quite a few sensible questions that deserve to be answered. Thought I am not a great fan of the Commie politicians (or for that matter any politicians), I cannot but agree to his questions, particularly on the energy capacity issue.

Something else that bothers me is why are we only getting opinions from Nuclear scientists, politicians and career bureaucrats on this deal? I saw splashed across newspapers the other day a lecture by M.R.Srinivasan, distinguished scientist no doubt, but, a nuclear scientist and certainly a stake holder in the developments afoot. Why should we not have the someone from the Vidharba Farmers Association talk on the Nuclear Deal or for that matter those who have been displaced by the various dams for hydro power in this country or even those who live close to the existing nuclear stations? A colleague of the Indian Ambassdor in the US, (this man deserves to be respected for being candid about his views in public at least once in his career) defends him in the news paper, a series of nuclear scientists write on the deal, even Kalam makes a comment...why is our public discourse cornered and opinions made on behalf of a billion people by a select few, there are fewer of these than who sit in the Parliament.