Search This Blog

Tuesday 15 December 2009

This is bigger than climate change. It is a battle to redefine humanity


 

It's hard for a species used to ever-expanding frontiers, but survival depends on accepting we live within limits

 

 

This is the moment at which we turn and face ourselves. Here, in the plastic corridors and crowded stalls, among impenetrable texts and withering procedures, humankind decides what it is and what it will become. It chooses whether to continue living as it has done, until it must make a wasteland of its home, or to stop and redefine itself. This is about much more than climate change. This is about us.
 
The meeting at Copenhagen confronts us with our primal tragedy. We are the universal ape, equipped with the ingenuity and aggression to bring down prey much larger than itself, break into new lands, roar its defiance of natural constraints. Now we find ourselves hedged in by the consequences of our nature, living meekly on this crowded planet for fear of provoking or damaging others. We have the hearts of lions and live the lives of clerks.
 
The summit's premise is that the age of heroism is over. We have entered the age of accommodation. No longer may we live without restraint. No longer may we swing our fists regardless of whose nose might be in the way. In everything we do we must now be mindful of the lives of others, cautious, constrained, meticulous. We may no longer live in the moment, as if there were no tomorrow.
 
This is a meeting about chemicals: the greenhouse gases insulating the atmosphere. But it is also a battle between two world views. The angry men who seek to derail this agreement, and all such limits on their self-fulfilment, have understood this better than we have. A new movement, most visible in North America and Australia, but now apparent everywhere, demands to trample on the lives of others as if this were a human right. It will not be constrained by taxes, gun laws, regulations, health and safety, especially by environmental restraints. It knows that fossil fuels have granted the universal ape amplification beyond its Palaeolithic dreams. For a moment, a marvellous, frontier moment, they allowed us to live in blissful mindlessness.

 

The angry men know that this golden age has gone; but they cannot find the words for the constraints they hate. Clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged, they flail around, accusing those who would impede them of communism, fascism, religiosity, misanthropy, but knowing at heart that these restrictions are driven by something far more repulsive to the unrestrained man: the decencies we owe to other human beings.

 

I fear this chorus of bullies, but I also sympathise. I lead a mostly peaceful life, but my dreams are haunted by giant aurochs. All those of us whose blood still races are forced to sublimate, to fantasise. In daydreams and video games we find the lives that ecological limits and other people's interests forbid us to live.

 
Humanity is no longer split between conservatives and liberals, reactionaries and progressives, though both sides are informed by the older politics. Today the battle lines are drawn between expanders and restrainers; those who believe that there should be no impediments and those who believe that we must live within limits. The vicious battles we have seen so far between greens and climate change deniers, road safety campaigners and speed freaks, real grassroots groups and corporate-sponsored astroturfers are just the beginning. This war will become much uglier as people kick against the limits that decency demands.

 

So here we are, in the land of Beowulf's heroics, lost in a fog of acronyms and euphemisms, parentheses and exemptions, the deathly diplomacy required to accommodate everyone's demands. There is no space for heroism here; all passion and power breaks against the needs of others. This is how it should be, though every neurone revolts against it.

 
Although the delegates are waking up to the scale of their responsibility, I still believe they will sell us out. Everyone wants his last adventure. Hardly anyone among the official parties can accept the implications of living within our means, of living with tomorrow in mind. There will, they tell themselves, always be another frontier, another means to escape our constraints, to dump our dissatisfactions on other places and other people. Hanging over everything discussed here is the theme that dare not speak its name, always present but never mentioned. Economic growth is the magic formula which allows our conflicts to remain unresolved.
While economies grow, social justice is unnecessary, as lives can be improved without redistribution. While economies grow, people need not confront their elites. While economies grow, we can keep buying our way out of trouble. But, like the bankers, we stave off trouble today only by multiplying it tomorrow. Through economic growth we are borrowing time at punitive rates of interest. It ensures that any cuts agreed at Copenhagen will eventually be outstripped. Even if we manage to prevent climate breakdown, growth means that it's only a matter of time before we hit a new constraint, which demands a new global response: oil, water, phosphate, soil. We will lurch from crisis to existential crisis unless we address the underlying cause: perpetual growth cannot be accommodated on a finite planet.

 

For all their earnest self-restraint, the negotiators in the plastic city are still not serious, even about climate change. There's another great unmentionable here: supply. Most of the nation states tussling at Copenhagen have two fossil fuel policies. One is to minimise demand, by encouraging us to reduce our consumption. The other is to maximise supply, by encouraging companies to extract as much from the ground as they can.


 

We know, from the papers published in Nature in April, that we can use a maximum of 60% of current reserves of coal, oil and gas if the average global temperature is not to rise by more than two degrees. We can burn much less if, as many poorer countries now insist, we seek to prevent the temperature from rising by more than 1.5C. We know that capture and storage will dispose of just a small fraction of the carbon in these fuels. There are two obvious conclusions: governments must decide which existing reserves of fossil fuel are to be left in the ground, and they must introduce a global moratorium on prospecting for new reserves. Neither of these proposals has even been mooted for discussion.

 
But somehow this first great global battle between expanders and restrainers must be won and then the battles that lie beyond it – rising consumption, corporate power, economic growth – must begin. If governments don't show some resolve on climate change, the expanders will seize on the restrainers' weakness. They will attack – using the same tactics of denial, obfuscation and appeals to self-interest – the other measures that protect people from each other, or which prevent the world's ecosystems from being destroyed. There is no end to this fight, no line these people will not cross. They too are aware that this a battle to redefine humanity, and they wish to redefine it as a species even more rapacious than it is today.



Use Hotmail to send and receive mail from your different email accounts. Find out how.

Friday 11 December 2009

Leaders of the rich world are enacting a giant fraud


 
December 11, 2009 Johann Hari:

Corporate lobbyists can pressure or bribe governments to rig the system in their favour

Every delegate to the Copenhagen summit is being greeted by the sight of a vast fake planet dominating the city's central square. This swirling globe is covered with corporate logos - the Coke brand is stamped over Africa, while Carlsberg appears to own Asia, and McDonald's announces "I'm loving it!" in great red letters above. "Welcome to Hopenhagen!" it cries. It is kept in the sky by endless blasts of hot air.
 
This plastic planet is the perfect symbol for this summit. The world is being told that this is an emergency meeting to solve the climate crisis - but here inside the Bela Centre where our leaders are gathering, you can find only a corrupt shuffling of words, designed to allow countries to wriggle out of the bare minimum necessary to prevent the unravelling of the biosphere.
Staggering across the fringes of the summit are the people who will see their countries live or die on the basis of its deliberations. Leah Wickham, a young woman from Fiji, broke down as she told the conference she will see her homeland disappear beneath the waves if we do not act now. "All the hopes of my generation rest on Copenhagen," she pleaded. Dazed Chinese and Indian NGOs explain how the Himalayan ice is rapidly vanishing and will be gone by 2035 - so the great rivers of Asia that are born there will shrivel and cease. They provide water for a quarter of humanity.
 
Mohamed Nasheed, the President of the drowning Maldives, said simply: "The last generation of humans went to the moon. This generation of humans needs to decide if it wants to stay alive on planet Earth."
 
We know what has to happen to give us a fighting chance of avoiding catastrophe. We need carbon emissions in rich countries to be 40 per cent lower than they were in 1990 - by 2020. We can haggle with each other over how to get there but we can't haggle with atmospheric physics over the end-goal: the Earth's atmosphere has put this limit on what it can absorb, and we can respect it, or suffer.
 
Yet the first week of this summit is being dominated by the representatives of the rich countries trying to lace the deal with Enron-style accounting tricks that will give the impression of cuts, without the reality. It's essential to understand these shenanigans this week, so we can understand the reality of the deal that will be announced with great razzmatazz next week.
Most of the tricks centre around a quirk in the system: a rich country can "cut" its emissions without actually releasing fewer greenhouse gases. How? It can simply pay a poor country to emit less than it otherwise would have. In theory it sounds okay: we all have the same atmosphere, so who cares where the cuts come from?
 
But a system where emissions cuts can be sold among countries introduces extreme complexity into the system. It quickly (and deliberately) becomes so technical that nobody can follow it - no concerned citizen, no journalist, and barely even full-time environmental groups. You can see if your government is building more coal power stations, or airports, or motorways. You can't see if the cuts they have "bought" halfway round the world are happening - especially when they are based on projections of increases that would have happened, in theory, if your government hadn't stumped up the cash.
 
A study by the University of Stanford found that most of the projects that are being funded as "cuts" either don't exist, don't work, or would have happened anyway. Yet this isn't a small side-dish to the deal: it's the main course. For example, under proposals from the US, the country with by far the highest per capita emissions in the world wouldn't need to cut its own gas by a single exhaust pipe until 2026, insisting it'll simply pay for these shadow-projects instead.
 
It gets worse still. A highly complex system operating in the dark is a gift to corporate lobbyists, who can pressure or bribe governments into rigging the system in their favour, rather than the atmosphere's. It's worth going through some of the scams that are bleeding the system of any meaning. They may sound dull or technical, but they are life or death to countries like Leah's.
Trick one: hot air. The nations of the world were allocated permits to release greenhouse gases back in 1990, when the Soviet Union was still a vast industrial power - so it was given a huge allocation. But the following year, it collapsed, and its industrial base went into freefall - along with its carbon emissions. It was never going to release those gases after all. But Russia and the eastern European countries have held on to them in all negotiations as "theirs". Now, they are selling them to rich countries who want to purchase "cuts". Under the current system, the US can buy them from Romania and say they have cut emissions - even though they are nothing but a legal fiction.
 
We aren't talking about climatic small change. This hot air represents 10 gigatonnes of CO2. By comparison, if the entire developed world cuts its emissions by 40 per cent by 2020, that will only take six gigatonnes out of the atmosphere.
 
Trick two: double-counting. This is best understood through an example. If Britain pays China to abandon a coal power station and construct a hydro-electric dam instead, Britain pockets the reduction in carbon emissions as part of our overall national cuts. In return, we are allowed to keep a coal power station open at home. But at the same time, China also counts this change as part of its overall cuts. So one tonne of carbon cuts is counted twice. This means the whole system is riddled with exaggeration - and the figure for overall global cuts is a con.
 
Trick three: the fake forests - or what the process opaquely dubs "LULUCF". Forests soak up warming gases and store them away from the atmosphere - so, perfectly sensibly, countries get credit under the new system for preserving them. It is an essential measure to stop global warming. But the Canadian, Swedish and Finnish logging companies have successfully pressured their governments into inserting an absurd clause into the rules. The new rules say you can, in the name of "sustainable forest management", cut down almost all the trees - without losing credits. It's Kafkaesque: a felled forest doesn't increase your official emissions... even though it increases your actual emissions.
 
There are dozens more examples like this, but you and I would lapse into a coma if I listed them. This is deliberate. This system has been made incomprehensible because if we understood, ordinary citizens would be outraged. If these were good faith negotiations, such loopholes would be dismissed in seconds. And the rich countries are flatly refusing to make even these enfeebled, leaky cuts legally binding. You can toss them in the bin the moment you leave the conference centre, and nobody will have any comeback. On the most important issue in the world - the stability of our biosphere - we are being scammed.
 
Our leaders are aren't giving us Hopenhagen - they're giving us Cokenhagen, a sugary feelgood hit filled with sickly additives and no nutrition. Their behaviour here - where the bare minimum described as safe by scientists isn't even being considered - indicates they are more scared of the corporate lobbyists that fund their campaigns, or the denialist streak in their own country, than of rising seas and falling civilisations.
 
But there is one reason why I am still - despite everything - defiantly hopeful. Converging on this city now are thousands of ordinary citizens who aren't going to take it any more. They aren't going to watch passively while our ecosystems are vandalised. They are demanding only what the cold, hard science demands - real and rapid cuts, enforced by a global environmental court that will punish any nation that endangers us all. This movement will not go away. Copenhagen has soured into a con - but from the wreckage, there could arise a stronger demand for a true solution.
 
If we don't raise the political temperature very fast, the physical temperature will rise - and we can say goodbye to Leah, and to the only safe climate we have ever known.


Have more than one Hotmail account? Link them together to easily access both.

Wednesday 9 December 2009

Are we better off without religion?

 

We should be careful about drawing rash conclusions from the correlation between religiosity and societal breakdown

 

Popular religious belief is caused by dysfunctional social conditions. This is the conclusion of the latest sociological research (pdf) conducted by Gregory Paul. Far from religion benefiting societies, as the "moral-creator socioeconomic hypothesis" would have it, popular religion is a psychological mechanism for coping with high levels of stress and anxiety – or so he suggests.


I've long been interested in Paul's work because it addresses a whole bunch of fascinating questions – why are Americans so religious when the rest of the developed world is increasingly secular? Is religious belief beneficial to societies? does religion make people behave better?

 

Many believers assume, without question, that it does – even that there can be no morality without religion. They cite George Washington who believed that national morality could not prevail without religions principles, or Dostoevsky's famous claim (actually words of his fictional character Ivan Karamazov) that "without God all things are permitted". Then there are Americans defending their country's peculiarly high levels of popular religious belief and claiming that faith-based charity is better than universal government provision.


 

Atheists, naturalists and humanists fight back claiming that it's perfectly possible to be moral without God. Evolutionary psychology reveals the common morality of our species, and the universal values of fairness, kindness, and reciprocity. But who is right? As a scientist I want evidence. What if – against all my own beliefs – it turns out that religious people really do behave better than atheists, and that religious societies are better in important respects than non-religious ones, then I would have cause to rethink some of my ideas.


 

This is where Gregory Paul and his research come in. I have often quoted his earlier, 2005, research which showed strong positive correlations between nations' religious belief and levels of murder, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse and other indicators of dysfunction. It seemed to show, at the very least, that being religious does not necessarily make for a better society. The real problem was that he was able to show only correlations, and the publicity for his new research seemed to imply causation. If so this would have important implications indeed.


 
In this latest research Paul measures "popular religiosity" for developed nations, and then compares it against the "successful societies scale" (SSS) which includes such things such as homicides, the proportion of people incarcerated, infant mortality, sexually transmitted diseases, teenage births and abortions, corruption, income inequality, and many others. In other words it is a way of summing up a society's health. The outlier again and again is the US with a stunning catalogue of failures. On almost every measure the US comes out worse than any other 1st world developed nation, and it is also the most religious.

 

For this reason Paul carries out his analysis both with and without the US included, but either way the same correlations turn up. The 1st world nations with the highest levels of belief in God, and the greatest religious observance are also the ones with all the signs of societal dysfunction. These correlations are truly stunning. They are not "barely significant" or marginal in any way. Many, such as those between popular religiosity and teenage abortions and STDs have correlation coefficients over 0.9 and the overall correlation with the SSS is 0.7 with the US included and 0.5 without. These are powerful relationships. But why?


 
The critical step from correlation to cause is not easy. Paul analyses all sorts of possibilities. Immigration and diversity do not explain the relationships, nor do a country's frontier past, nor its violent media, and so he is led to his conclusions: "Because highly secular democracies are significantly and regularly outperforming the more theistic ones, the moral-creator socioeconomic hypothesis is rejected in favour of the secular-democratic socioeconomic hypothesis"; "religious prosociality and charity are less effective at improving societal conditions than are secular government programmes".

 

He draws implications for human evolution too. Contrary to Dan Dennett, Pascal Boyer and others, he argues that religion is not a deep-seated or inherited tendency. It is a crutch to which people turn when they are under extreme stress, "a natural invention of human minds in response to a defective habitat". Americans, he says, suffer appalling stress and anxiety due to the lack of universal health care, the competitive economic environment, and huge income inequalities, and under these conditions belief in a supernatural creator and reliance on religious observance provides relief. By contrast, the middle class majorities of western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan have secure enough lives not to seek help from a supernatural creator.


 
These are powerful conclusions indeed, and if they are right the US in particular needs to take note. But are they? I still retain some caution. I keep reminding myself of the obvious point that in science it is all too easy to apply a more critical eye to research whose conclusions you disagree with. In this case the wiggly route from correlation to cause includes many questionable steps, and clearly a lot more research is needed. I was also dismayed by what might seem trivial – the appalling number of typos and other mistakes in the only version of the paper I could find – the one that is linked from the press release and several other places. There are missing words, added words, "their"s for "there"s and other errors that sometimes made it hard to follow. If the text was so poorly checked, I wondered, what about the data? Should I apply my critical concerns to those stunningly high correlations too?

I guess we'll find out, for this is a hot topic and a thriving research area. For now we need not necessarily agree with Paul that "it is probably not possible for a socially healthy nation to be highly religious" but he has certainly shown that the healthiest nations are also the least religious.



Have more than one Hotmail account? Link them together to easily access both.

Immigrants now require 'permission' to stay in UK


 

Immigrants now require 'permission' to stay in UK

Text Size:
|
LONDON: Further tightening its noose on immigrants, the UK has proposed a bill under which five current application categories available to such people will be replaced with a clear-cut concept - 'permission' to be in the country.

Under the new Immigration Bill, immigrants will either be granted permission or refused, making the rules easier for applicants and staff.

Those in the United Kingdom must gain permission or face removal for breaking the law.

These proposals are the next step in building on the rapid progress the government has made in tightening up Britain's border controls.

Over the past three years the UK has seen the introduction of e-Borders to check individuals in and out of the country and the implementation of the points-based system which ensures that only those who benefit the economy can come here to work.

On Thursday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown had announced that doors will be shut to highly skilled non-EU doctors and engineers, and the government will consider denying visa to students seeking entry to short-term programmes.

In order to bring together the essential changes that have already taken place, the government is proposing a new bill to bring forward a new legal framework to simplify and consolidate 40 years of immigration laws.

A tough new menu of conditions is proposed for those on immigration bail, including restrictions on residence, work or study, access to public funds, and reporting and electronic monitoring.

The government also published proposals for a new streamlined asylum support system wherein those plying with the rules will be rewarded and tough stance will be taken against those who do not streamline the current complex system of support.

"I believe our proposals strike a fair balance between supporting asylum seekers while their claim is being determined and encouraging the return of those who have no protection needs and who have no right to be in the UK," Woolas said.


New! Receive and respond to mail from other email accounts from within Hotmail Find out how.

Tuesday 8 December 2009

It's time we reread Mahabharata for soul searching


 
 
Mallika Sarabhai / DNA
 

Have you ever wondered why the Ramayana became a religious text and the Mahabharata remained an epic? Why Sita became Sitama and Rama became Sri Rama, while Arjuna or Yudhishthira or Draupadi didn't become gods or goddesses?
 
I have often wondered about it and this is what I think. The Ramayana is a simple story, where good is good and bad is bad - for the most part anyway. In some versions Rama might put Sita through an agni pariksha (thankfully husbands haven't instituted this one in daily life) and in others he might have trusted a dhobi more than his ardhangana, but for the most part he is a good hero.
 
In the Mahabharata, on the contrary, no one is clearly good and no one is clearly bad. In fact, the characters are much more like us - with strengths and weaknesses, good sides and bad, convictions and doubts. This makes us uncomfortable - how can we idolize people who, like us, dither? How can we worship such complicated characters? And how can we make into a religious text a book which has no clear cut answers but demands that we assess personal dharma and universal dharma at every step of our lives? It is too much hard work, and that we certainly don't want to cope with - especially since we have to cope with doubts and risks all the time in our real lives. It's much better to have clear cut good and evil.
 
Of all the great religions of the world and especially the three religions of the Book - Christianity, Judaism and Islam - god makes the rules (or the son of god or a variant of this). Humans just follow these rules. No questions asked, no debate. Rules, rules and rules - and, if you break the rules you go to hell. In our Sanatana Dharma there are no such facilities. It is we who are at the core, not god.
 
It is the Brahman or the paramatma in US that is the truth not an external behaviour checking being. And this makes it really hard. Amidst the humdrumness of coping with self, family, community, finance, illness etc. where do we have time to be self questioning? Isn't it easier just to light a lamp at home or in the temple, offer some prayers and ask god to do what we want - get a first class, get more money from my shares than my neighbour, get my daughter married, ………..?
 
Further, Hinduism depends on enquiry, on doubt, on questions.  The Upanishads, Vedanta, some of the Vedas are a result of enquiry. Draupadi's two questions in the Rajsabha after the Pandava lose at dice are at the root of all the questions and doubts that all the players battle with for the rest of the epic.
 
As a society we have become afraid of enquiry, of a child's curiosity, about an adolescent's search for answers to a grown up and incomprehensible world. We know of teachers beating their students for daring to ask a question, for it is seen as disrespect to an authority. We know of parents (are we amongst them?) who ask their children to shut up or lie to them when they ask 'uncomfortable' questions. We know how governments respond with anger to questions asked through RTI enquiries.  And how often have we not heard the retort "mane puchchva vala tame kaun chho?' (Who are you to question me?)
 
Without questioning a society becomes frozen. Without self testing - of beliefs, of mores, or traditions, of habits - we become what Gurudev Tagore describes as a society mired in the dead weight of old habit.
 
With today being the black day of the demolition of the Babri Masjid, and Ambedkar Day, and two days ago being the 25th anniversary of the Bhopal tragedy, it is perhaps time for the thinking amongst us to go back to the Mahabharata, not as a story, but to question and grapple with the dilemmas that each character faces, and to source the parallel realities that surround us so many thousand years later.




Use Hotmail to send and receive mail from your different email accounts. Find out how.

Love's bite is deeper, Tiger


 

Without risk there can be no passion. Philosophers know that, beyond golf, romance is under threat

 

A curious saga unfolded across the media last week. Hour by hour we were fed reports on the Tiger Woods car crash, his refusal to meet police, and speculation about extramarital affairs. The best-paid sports star in the world barricaded himself at home and apologised for his "transgressions" and "failings". But this did not stop the alleged "love cheat" being lectured about Truth with a capital T. Indeed, so many words ring false in this modern chronicle of love: hero, zero, recompense – as well as truth.

If this saga proves one thing, it is not Woods's "malice", but that love is threatened by the world's two leading ideologies: libertarianism and liberalism. These two 21st-century diseases concur to make us believe that love is a risk not worth taking: as if we could have, on one hand, a safe conjugality; and on the other, sexual arrangements that will spare us the dangers of passion. Both are illusions.

 

In a remarkable book that has just come out called Eloge de l'Amour (Eulogy of Love), the French philosopher Alain Badiou ponders on the nature of love, and how Judaism, Christianity, philosophy, politics and art have in turn treated and considered this universal event: the bursting on to the stage of our lives of this most unruly agent.

 

Badiou was struck by an advertising campaign last year for Meetic, a European dating website. Its slogans: "Get Love without the hazards!"; "You can love without falling in love"; and "You can love without suffering!" In other words, Meetic offers the public 100% Guaranteed Risk Free Love. This prompted Badiou to comment: "Love without the fall, love without the risks, is just another piece of propaganda, just like the presumed security of arranged marriages or, for that matter, the American invention of a zero-casualty war. Love is what gives our life intensity and meaning, thus full of risks, in my opinion worth taking." For the philosopher, the other threat to love today is the liberal dogma: one that denies love its importance by making it another extension of hedonism and consumerism.

 

As Rimbaud said, "Love must be reinvented" – against the dictatorship of security and comfort. Placing himself between the extremes represented by Schopenhauer's pessimism and Kierkegaard's absolute, Badiou starts from Plato – for whom love is an elan towards idealism – and distances himself from French moralists, who traditionally view love as the ornament to desire and sexual jealousy. For him, love is not truth, but a construction of the truth with someone who is not identical but different. It is also a pig-headed attempt to make an event last in time. "Obstinacy is a strong element of love."

 

Artists have always preferred the figure of love as an all-consuming encounter, revolutionary perhaps, but doomed from the start, as in André Breton's Nadja. In the arts, obstinate love hasn't much inspired artists. Except one perhaps: in Samuel Beckett, Badiou sees the real champion of love. For Badiou, Beckett's Happy Days is far more romantic than Tristan and Isolde. "Think of this old couple who have pigheadly loved each other: magnificent!" Badiou refutes the romantic notion of fusion and the dissolution of oneself in the other's gaze. He insists that love is built on the alterity between lovers, and says – in opposition to religious thinkers – that children are steps along the way, not love's final destination.

 
For all these reasons, Badiou links love to revolution and resistance: a revolution because it implies contradictions and violence; and a resistance to today's tyranny of puritanical lecturing, hypocritical public confession, naming and shaming, and the ultimate fantasy – the infallible hero.



View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.

Monday 7 December 2009

Iran: Time To Leave The NPT?


 

 

By Nader Bagherzadeh & Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich

06 December, 2009
Countercurrents.org

 

Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) acknowledges the "inalienable right" of non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS) to research, develop, and use nuclear energy for non-weapons purposes. The NPT also supports the "fullest possible exchange" of such nuclear-related information and technology between nuclear weapons states (P5) and non-nuclear weapons states. Iran, a NNWS has been denied its "inalienable rights" while support and the exchange of nuclear-related information has been withheld. This begs the question why Iran should continue to honor the NPT?

 

Indications are that Tehran did not believe that in the international arena, its biggest foe would be injustice. When former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton was busy engineering completely illegal sanctions against Iran, it was with the goal of testing Tehran's patience in the hope of having it exit the NPT so that he could muster up support for yet another war against an Islamic country in the Middle East. But Iran remained steadfast and in sharp contrast to the United States, it continued to respect international laws in the firm belief that justice would prevail. It did not.

 

Since 2003, the IAEA has consistently failed its obligations towards Iran as defined by the 1974 Safeguards Agreement. It has failed to facilitate refueling of a small reactor in Tehran, used mostly for short-lived medical isotopes. It has cancelled several key technical assistance programs with Iran, some of them related to nuclear safety issues, under pressure from the US. At America's behest, the IAEA has become a conventional weapon inspector agency, seeking information about national secrets of Iran related to missiles and conventional bomb making capabilities; which is completely outside of its jurisdiction, as spelled out in the 1974 agreement. In violation of Article 9 of the 1974 Agreement, the IAEA has shared Iran's sensitive nuclear technology with member nations, as well as outside nuclear experts with dubious connections to Iran's enemies. And most importantly, the Agency with tremendous pressure from US, has elevated a technical non-compliance matter to the level Chapter 7 UNSC sanctions, which should have been used when there is a clear indication of a nuclear weapons program.

 

The Agency's clear violation of Iran's rights under the NPT leads one to wonder if the IAEA is ever going to clear Iran's file and revert it back to the normal status while the US is exerting pressure. It is unrealistic for Iran's leadership to assume that by fully engaging the IAEA, sometime in the near future, this agency, working against the wishes of Obama's administration, will clear Iran's path to have nascent enrichment capability. After all, the so called "laptop" filled with mostly fabricated information against Iran's nuclear programs did not show up until it was clear that the IAEA was going to declare 6 outstanding concerns on Iran's past nuclear activities were no longer valid.

 

Although Obama has extended his hand towards Iran, the policy of "zero-enrichment" has not changed an iota from Bush's policy. When Obama chose Gary Samore and Dennis Ross to handle Iran's nuclear case, it was obvious that Obama did not have any major changes in mind, and the goal was to use a softer approach to gather more support for putting pressure, or as Ross calls it "bigger sticks." Moreover, a recent trip by Ross to Beijing to convince Chinese leadership to sign up for more sanctions against Iran on behalf of Obama, shows that not only Ross was not marginalized after he was transferred from the State Department to the White House, but he is practically in the driver's seat for Obama's Iran policy.

 

In addition to the West's shaping of IAEA's illegitimate position on Iran's nuclear file, relentless fabricated attacks by the western media has finally resulted in portraying Iran as an outlaw when it comes to the nuclear activities. The propaganda machine led by the likes of Fred Hiatt of Washington Post and Nicolas Goldberg of Los Angeles Times, have helped create such an environment that a recent Pew poll showed that more than 50% of Americans support a US military strike against Iran while the U.S. is in a quagmire in the graveyard of the empires - Afghanistan, and continues to be engaged in its sixth year war in Iraq.

 

The latest IAEA's report which continued its demands from Iran to go beyond its obligations under the NPT safeguards and Subsidiary Arrangement Code 3.1 is another misrepresentation of the truth by the Agency. Iran's Majlis (parliament) never approved this code which requires reporting any nuclear project at the point of inception. It is ironic that a major NPT member (i.e. US) is allowed to threaten Iran's nuclear facilities with military strikes, but when Iran rightfully wants to prevent that from happening by using passive defensive majors, she is censured by the Board.

 

Iran's continued cooperation with the IAEA may be a call for equality. Their security in pursuing their goal stems from the justness of their cause, itself a compelling reason to delay a war with the US. However, this cooperation is not serving the development of peaceful nuclear energy in Iran. The Agency has been a tool in the hands of major powers and it does not seem that the status will change anytime soon. The way Obama is pushing the chess pieces against Iran by seeking an oil embargo and crippling sanctions, he may be boxed into a war, even if he is ostensibly against it. Perhaps it is time for Iran to reconsider her membership and leave the NPT.

 

Dr. Nader Bagherzadeh is a professor of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Irvine, California.

 

Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich has a Master's in Public Diplomacy from USC Annenberg. She is an independent researcher and writer.



View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.