Gurumurthy Kalyanaram on the Democratic Yearnings in the Middle-East

Gurumurthy Kalyanaram - The Middle-East political revolution began in Tunisia, then to Egypt, Libya and now to Syria.

The wave of freedom quest in the Middle-East is too evident and obvious – we have called it the Arab Spring. Gurumurthy Kalyanaram Lawsuit

However, now the Arab Spring appears to be clouded. Tunisia recently elected its constituent assembly. A general election under the new constitution is expected to be held in late 2012 or early 2013.

The winners in the constituent assembly are candidates affiliated to Islamist party, Nahda, which is led by Rachid Ghannouchi. Nahda secured 41 percent of the assembly seats. The new prime minister is Hamadi Jebali of the Islamist party.

The American Clean Energy Act, Global Warming and the Position of China and India

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey) was recently approved (narrowly) by the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill now goes to the U.S. Senate for consideration.

There are several provisions of the bill -- some are bold and others modest, some progressive and others status quoist. With respect to Global Warming and Carbon emission reduction, the Act mandates, "Starting in 2012, ACES establishes annual tonnage limits on emissions of carbon and other global warming pollutants from large U.S. sources like electric utilities and oil refiners. Under these limits, carbon pollution from large sources must be reduced by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. To achieve these limits, ACES establishes a system of tradable permits called “emission allowances” modeled after the successful Clean Air Act program to prevent acid rain. This market-based approach provides economic incentives for industry to reduce carbon emissions at the lowest cost to the economy."

So, per ACES Act, the United States is using 2005 as the benchmark, and hoping to reduce the carbon emissions by about 17 percent in 2020. 

What is the thinking on Iran-India Gas Pipeline?

For quite sometime now (since 1990), India and Pakistan have been discussing -- on and off -- transporting gas (natural gas) from Iran oilfields to India. The pipeline for such transport from Iran to India will be through Pakistan and even some parts of Afghanistan. That and the enormous estimated cost ($7.5 billion) make the proposition very complicated, if not almost impossible. There are challenging political, economic and diplomatic considerations. Here are just a few --

Assuming that the India-Pakistan political and economic relations are honky-dory, Afghanistan is a mine-field. The political uncertainty and instability in Afghanistan for the last 30 years is evident. So how will the safety of the pipeline be assured? What is the guarantee that the pipeline will not become hostage to political and even religious angst and anger?

Of course, the relations between Pakistan and India is far from reliable. Even as late as in years 1999-2000, India and Pakistan were poised to go to war. Of course, there are constant disagreements over small and big issues -- terrorism, cross-border military incursions, perceptions of slight.

Most difficult of all these challenges is the Kashmir valley. The Kashmir valley issue has no solution at all. Pakistan political leaders are unlikely to ever give up the claim that Kashmir valley should be transferred to Pakistan -- in fact, no Pakistan political leader can afford to do this politically. Of course, India will never let anyone impinge or question its sovereignty -- Kashmir is an integral part of India. If Kashmir valley was not such a narrow and small geographic area, and if there were some natural geographic divides, may be there could have been some give-and-take on the land. But that is not the case.

What if the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline becomes a reality, and India starts using the enormous amount of natural gas for consumer and industrial purposes, and five years down the road, some political leader in Pakistan or some terrorist in Afghanistan decides to hold the pipeline hostage? India's economy will suffer devastating consequences.

What if Iran decides to raise the price of the natural gas? By supplying such large volumes of natural gas, and with the economic necessity of using the pipeline, Iran will have a near-monopolistic power. Even as the project is on the drawing board, Iran has already demonstrated its unreliability. So what can be of the future?

The pipeline project reached a setback on July 16, 2006 when Iran demanded a price of $7.20 per million British thermal unit ($6.80/GJ) of gas against India's offer of $4.20 per million British thermal unit ($4.00/GJ). The Indian spokesperson then stated that the price demanded by by Iran was more than 50 percent above the prevailing market price in India. India and Pakistan finally agreed in February 2007 to pay Iran $4.93 per million British thermal units ($4.67/GJ) but some details relating to price adjustment remained open to further negotiation.

Finally, the political instability and volatility in Iran is too obvious.

Given all these risks, it is not at all clear why India is investing so much time and effort in exploring this alluring but illusional opportunity.

Added to all these complications are two other elements. First, the United States is stoutly against this project as the U.S. is against any relations with Iran. That political reality may soften but it is not likely to change completely. Both Pakistan and India want the good will of the United States for different reasons -- for security reasons for Pakistan and for aspirational reasons for India. Second, China now wants to be part of this project adding to another level of complexity.

So why this project? It just does not add up.

Background: The project was mooted in 1990 with expectations that it will benefit both India and Pakistan, who do not have sufficient natural gas to meet their rapidly increasing domestic demand for energy. The IPI pipeline is a proposed 2,775-km-long pipeline to deliver natural gas from Iran to Pakistan and India. According to the project proposal, the pipeline will begin from Asalouyeh and stretch over 1,100 km through Iran. In Pakistan, it will pass through Balochistan and Sindh but officials now say the route may be changed if China agrees to the project. The gas will be supplied from the South Pars field. The initial capacity of the pipeline will be 22 billion cubic meter of natural gas per annum, which is expected to be later raised to 55 billion cubic metre. It is expected to cost $7.5 billion.

The near implausibility of getting the India-US Nuclear agreement approved?

Let us put aside the substance and merit (or lack thereof) of the proposed India-US Nuclear agreement. Let us examine plausibility of getting the India-US Nuclear agreement done now that the Indian government appears to want to get the agreement done -- the United States government has been waiting on the Indian government.

But here is the timetable --

The next step is negotiations and discussions with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and getting the India-specific elements ratified by the Board of IAEA. This could take 2-3 months.

Subsequently, the agreement has to be discussed and approved by a Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) for the exemption from the ban on supplying nuclear technology to countries that have not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT.) NSG is a group of countries that would eventually supply the nuclear technology (fuel and hardware) to India. And this process could take additional couple of months.

Even if the IAEA and NSG approvals are processed simultaneously, the agreements cannot be completed till September.

So the U.S. Congress cannot consider the agreement -- 123 agreement, IAEA safeguards,and NSG exemption -- till after the November congressional elections which are certain to increase the majority of the Democratic party in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and may be even elect Barack Obama to the Presidency.

Given that the Democrats are strongly concerned about Nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT), the Nuclear agreement may be received with lots of skepticism in the U.S. Congress. Though the Nuclear agreement would be considered by the lame-duck congress (so the additional electoral Democratic strength will not be reflected), the Democratic leadership can easily derail the consideration of the agreement -- it the leadership so chooses -- by the new congress as Democrats (by virtue of their majority status) control the flow of the bills for consideration.

So the plausibility of getting agreement ratified completely appears dim given this late-hour start.

The New York Times (in a recent editorial) criticizes the India-US Nuclear agreement as too generous and a give away of the the store to India. Of course, this is exactly the opposite of the objections raised by the Communists and the Bharatiya Janata Party in India -- their objections are that the Nuclear agreement potentially impinges upon India's sovereignty and restricts India's future options.

The agreement cannot be placed, if at all, before the U.S. Congress for its consideration and approval before the November elections when the Democratic party is likely to add to its majority in both the Houses of Congress, and may even capture the White House. The Democratic party leaders -- Joe Biden, Barack Obama -- have expressed serious reservations about the agreement.

Given all these facts, and the fact that President Bush's (the champion of the agreement) approval ratings are likely to be hovering in the low 30s, the chances of the agreement being approved by the U.S. Congress is diminishing rapidly.

In the meantime, Lal Krishna Advani is asking for a quick (short) parliamentary session of the Indian parliament houses (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) where the nuclear agreement can be debated and voted either up or down. Congress party and its governing allies are averse to this.

If the Congress party, Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh were willing to sacrifice power for the consummation of the nuclear agreement (and that is quite noble, indeed), how one wishes the party had moved ahead at least 3-4 months back!

The travails of Pakistan

Pakistan is yest again in a bind. For a county that is full of thoughtful and vibrant citizens, its polity has let it down since its independence. Unfortunately, Pakistan -- though was gifted with the same norms and institutions as India for political pluaralism by the British -- has not found its political governance model.

Pakistan military -- unlike in India -- has been too willing to seek political power. Three military rulers -- Ayub Khan in the 1960s, Zia-ul-Huq in 1980s and now Musharraf -- each with substantial longevity have dominated Pakistan's political leadership. The challenge with military autocracy as with any dictatorship is that there is no accountability and the desire to hold on to power warps even the most sane human mind. In a democracy, elections are as inevitable as the seasons and the political leadership is naturally held accountable and prevented from amassing power.

Look at Musharraf. First, in trying to hold and then in trying to consolidate his political power, Musharraf decided to align himself with the U.S. in the fight against terrorism. Instantly, Musharraf gained a certain respectability and credibility, and access to resources because of the patronage from the U.S. However, Musharraf squandered this opportunity though hubris and a greed for power.

Musharraf amended the constitution to suit his whims and fancies, refused to let political parties and leaders operate in Pakistan, intimated the press, and finally threatened the judiciary and removed the inconvenient judges. Musharaff disguised all this for a long time as necessary actions to fight fundamentalism and terrorism. But this excuse soon wore out.

Musharraf, finally and reluctantly, allowed parliamentary elections and participation by political parties. And then tragedy stuck in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Bhutto's compromised and corrupt husband, Asif Ali Zardari, was then elected as co-chair of Pakistan People's Party.

In an effort to divide the political opposition, Musharraf adopted the old Machiavellian approach by dismissing all the criminal and civil complaints against Zardari prior to the recent parliamentary elections. But Musharaff prevented Nawaz Sharif, the former Prime Minister, from contesting the parliamentary elections. While Zardari's Pakistan People's party won enough parliamentary seats for a simple majority, Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League also won substantial number of seats.

After much hard-pressed negotiations, Zardari and Sharif agreed to form the government together. But within months, the coalition has come apart. What a tragedy for Pakistan! What a gift to Musharraf!!

The agreement has come apart on a simple but enlightening issue. Sharif, rightly, wanted the Supreme Court justices who were removed by Musharraf for his own political expediency be restored to their positions through parliamentary action. That was the right constitutional, moral and political decision. But Zardari, after initially agreeing to this, blocked the rightful action because Zardari himself could not afford an independent judiciary given his precarious situation.

Of course, Musharaff is smiling. But people of Pakistan have much to be disappointed.