Western dilemma: What if Iran suspends?

Trita Parsi

As the Feb. 21 deadline for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment programme fast approaches, both Iran and the West are scrambling to prepare themselves for all possible moves by the other side.
   A scenario causing some discomfort among decision-makers in the George W. Bush administration would entail Iran succumbing to the Security Council request - but only after first giving its nuclear programme a decisive push.
   After more than two years of negotiations, inspections, threats and counter threats, the Security Council finally put the Western demand for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment programme into a legally binding Chapter VII Security Council resolution. With a deadline of Feb. 21, UNSCR 1737 requires a suspension of "all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA," the International Atomic Energy Agency.
   Though the sanctions imposed on Iran are relatively benign, markets in Iran have reacted negatively to the development and pragmatists in Iran are pressuring the country's top decision-maker, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to find a face-saving way out of this situation before the standoff with the West escalates further.
   This has proven a difficult task. Khamenei is suspicious of the intent of Western governments and has little faith in their willingness to reciprocate potential Iranian concessions. In his view, sources close to his office reveal, a hard line stance against the West should be tried since the more conciliatory policies pursued by former President Mohammad Khatami failed to produce any gains for Iran.
   The counter-argument, presented by the pragmatists, goes that the softer policy helped avoid a costly and potentially unmanageable confrontation with the West.
   According to Nasser Hadian, a political analyst close to the Reformist camp, Iran will likely announce the connection and operation of six cascades of centrifuges within the next few weeks. Sources familiar with the debate in Tehran say that Iran is considering using the anniversary of the Iranian Revolution on Feb. 11 to announce this decision and celebrate it widely.
   By doing so, Hadian explains, the Iranian government would become psychologically and politically prepared to accept a compromise on its enrichment programme. It would be a face-saving exercise that could pave the way for a suspension and an agreement to permit much tougher IAEA inspections in order to avoid any escalation in the Security Council. It would also provide Iran with a stronger position in the ensuing negotiations with the P5+1 states - Britain, France, Russia, China, the United States and Germany.
   Though Iran would agree to the U.N. Security Council demand and intrusive inspections, this move is still causing discomfort in Western capitals. In a standoff that increasingly has become about prestige and stature, and less and less about non-proliferation, the Iranian move might provide Tehran with a bit too much face-saving, in the view of some Europeans. It could be interpreted by Brussels as an insult and make the EU's efforts to find a resolution to the nuclear wrestling match appear irrelevant.
   After all, speeding up the Iranian programme would counter the spirit and letter of the Security Council resolution, even if Iran would manage to suspend the programme before the resolution deadline is reached.
   More importantly, the Iranian move would signal that Tehran has - in spite of U.S. and EU efforts - managed to master the fuel cycle. For Washington, this would cause an additional headache; mastering the fuel cycle is the latest Israeli red line (previously, Israel regarded uranium enrichment as the nuclear point of no return). Israel has signaled Washington that if Iran crosses this line, and the Bush administration refuses to take action, Israel will be left with no choice but to attack Iran itself.
   As a result, from Israel's perspective, the U.S. policy will be proven a failure if Iran connects the cascades - even if it subsequently suspends its nuclear programme and enters into negotiations with the U.S. and the EU for a long-term solution.
   The threat of an Israeli attack on Iran, however, is likely still viewed with some scepticism in Washington, even though Israeli officials have as of late warned Washington that an attack may be imminent. The Israeli Air force still lacks the capability to successfully take out the known Iranian facilities. More importantly, U.S. war plans involve not only targeting the nuclear plants but also much of the infrastructure related to the nuclear programme.
   While the U.S. has the capability to target these points, Israel does not. A rash and unsuccessful military campaign could turn the political momentum to Iran's favour and undermine efforts to stop Tehran.
   Israeli military action would also spell disaster for Tel Aviv's efforts to use the perceived threat from Iran to forge closer ties with the pro-Washington Sunni dictatorships in the region, without necessarily acceding to the longstanding Arab condition for such a diplomatic shift: an Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state. As much as these Arab dictatorships loathe and fear Iran, they cannot gravitate towards Israel if it engages in a pre-emptive war against a fellow Muslim state.
   Finally, Iran is the home to the largest community of Jews in the Middle East outside of Israel itself. Approximately 25,000 Iranian Jews continue to live in the Islamic republic, a country they have called home since the Persian King Cyrus the Great liberated the Jews from the Babylonian imprisonment 2,500 years ago. Military confrontation with Iran could jeopardise the security of this ancient community, a move the Jewish State would be reluctant to take.
   Yet, even if Israel doesn't act on its threats, Washington will still be faced with a major political dilemma. On the one hand, it will be difficult for the U.S. to refuse negotiations with Iran after having publicly repeated suspension of enrichment as its sole condition for talks.
   "I myself have said I'll show up any place, any time, anywhere to talk with my Iranian counterpart, with other European leaders, if the Iranians will just do the one simple thing that the world has been asking them to do for almost three years: suspend their enrichment capabilities," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told PBS News Hour earlier last month.
   On the other hand, having defined a nuclear weapons capability as the mastering of the fuel cycle, and having vowed not to permit Iran to have such a capability, inaction by the Bush administration could come at the expense of appearing to backtrack on an important pledge to Israel. Washington hawks will no doubt accuse the president of letting Iran off the hook.
   At some point, however, Washington, Brussels and Tehran must choose whether to win the battle for enrichment or the battle for prestige. Winning both may be outside the realm of possibility for all involved parties.
   Dr. Trita Parsi is the author of "Treacherous Triangle - The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States" (Yale University Press, 2007). He is also president of the National Iranian American Council.

Marty Logan in Kathmandu

A 12-day uprising by Nepal's 'madheshi' (plains) people has forced the revolutionary government to promise it will change the state structure to more fairly distribute power to the excluded groups.
   The 'new Nepal' will be a federal state instead of the current centralised one and will include more electoral constituencies to reflect recent population growth, Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala announced in a televised speech 31 January.
   Madheshis now comprise 36 per cent of the population of this South Asian nation bordered by India and China but have held only roughly 15 per cent of the seats in recent governments. Women, indigenous people and dalits (so-called 'untouchables' under Hindu dogma) are the other 'excluded' groups in this society dominated by upper-caste males.
   "We are working on the formation of a new structure of the state, where people from all races, castes and quarters will be represented. All of them will have their responsible roles in building the nation," said Koirala in the speech. He also directed the home minister to hold talks with madheshi protesters.
   But such rhetoric is unlikely to satisfy protesting madheshis and other 'excluded' Nepalis who have raised their voices in unison with protests on the plains in recent days. For example, groups representing three indigenous nationalities called a three-day general strike in the eastern hills from Wednesday to press their demands for ethnic autonomy and the right to self-determination.
   Koirala's speech was burned by activists of political parties in some parts of the terai, daily newspaper The Himalayan Times reported Thursday. "To say that constituencies will be based on population increase is merely an attempt to mislead the madheshi people," said Bhagya Nath Gupta of the Madheshi People's Rights Forum, the group leading the protests, reported the paper.
   On that Wednesday evening activists reportedly stabbed to death a policeman after storming a police post near the city of Biratnagar in southeastern Nepal. One protester was reportedly killed in a police counter-attack.
   Biratnagar had been under a curfew since Tuesday afternoon when one demonstrator was killed in clashes with police.
   "I assure you there will be no election if the Madhesh issue is not settled...this movement will not be stopped. That's because all of us living here (in Kathmandu) will leave and go to the Madhesh to support it," said Vijay Kant Karna, chairman of madheshi rights NGO, JAGHRIT Nepal.
   And while the government is promising federal government, Karna told IPS that protesters have a specific model in mind. All powers would be transferred to states except finance, foreign policy and defence. "We want a federal system where all the ethnic people can build their states in their own way," he added.
   The Maoists brought notions of federalism and autonomy into the mainstream when they divided Nepal into nine autonomous regions based largely on the dominant indigenous group in each area. They also promised these groups the right to become independent nations if they could not agree with the central government.
   But Maoist leaders have questioned the authenticity of the current madheshi uprising, blaming it on flames kindled by disgruntled royalists and Hindu activists. One of the first acts of the recalled parliament after April's 'people's movement' was to declare the former "Kingdom of Nepal" a secular state.
   Most senior government leaders have also downplayed madheshi grievances and pointed fingers at "regressive elements" working behind the scenes to revive the monarchy. Three former ministers from the king's regime were arrested for instigating violence in the 'terai' (plains region) late last month. On the next day they were handed three-month detention warrants under the Public Security Act. The government said it has a watch list of 80 other royalists.
   The madhesh revolt was sparked when Maoist activists reportedly shot dead a madheshi who was among a group trying to enforce a transportation strike to protest the government's interim constitution January 19. Since then eight people have died, hundreds have been injured and closures have crippled economic lifelines from the plains to the capital Kathmandu in the country's central hills and remote mountain regions.
   The interim constitution was passed by a temporary legislative assembly Jan. 15. It is notable for 73 Maoist members, whose place was secured in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed between government and formal rebel leaders last November. After 10 years of guerrilla war, the Maoists suspended their revolt last April to team up with major political parties against the autocratic rule of King Gyanendra, who was pushed from power by a tidal wave of hundreds of thousands of protesters on Nepal's streets.
   The interim government is tasked with preparing the nation for elections in June to a constituent assembly that will draft a permanent constitution. But unrest threatens the possibility for the 'safe and secure environment' that is required to hold the polls.
   "A redefinition of Nepal is essential," said Karna. "We are multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-religious but one country."
   -Inter Press Service

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

---

'India is the hub of world ICT'

Steve Schifferes in Bangalore

When 13-year old Taylor, who lives in Modesto, California, wants help with her homework, she no longer goes and asks her mother for help.
   Instead she goes to her computer and gets on the internet, where she dials up an e-tutoring service, TutorVista, based in Bangalore, India, for help with her maths and English.
   "My daughter is literally at the top of every single one of her classes and she has never done that before," says her single-parent mother, Denise Robison.
   Denise pays $2.50 per hour for the service, a fraction of the $40 per hour charged by US online tutoring services or the $100 an hour charged for face-to-face tutoring.
   
   IT services revolution
   Denise's experience is just one small example of the IT services revolution that is sweeping the world of business, and is changing the face of India.
   In the past, economists thought that only goods could be traded across borders, while most services could not be imported and therefore were not subject to the same pressures from international competition.
   But the internet has changed all that, and now the fastest-growing portion of international trade is trade in services.
   And it is big companies, not private individuals, who are making the most of the lower cost of many internationally traded services.
   They have found that it is cheaper to outsource many white collar tasks - such as accounting, IT support, and payrolls - to locations overseas.
   The global leader in the provision of these services, known as business process outsourcing (BPO), is India, which exports $25 billion per year worth of these services, a figure that is expected to rise to $60 billion by 2010.
   There are many reasons why India has become the centre of the global IT services industry.
   We believe that India is the hub for the world where the ICT sector is concerned
   It has a highly educated workforce, with two million college graduates a year, all of whom speak English. It has excellent international data communications links, and good internet access in the major cities.
   And the wages of its professional IT workers average one-quarter to one-tenth of the wages of equivalent posts in Europe or US. But the Indian IT services industry only began to develop when the government opened the country to the forces of globalisation, ending regulation at home and lowering barriers to foreign investment, in the early 1990s.
   The government deliberately targeted the export-oriented IT services sector for growth, giving it special subsidies.
   Multinationals rush in
   Foreign multinationals flooded into India, eager to take advantage of the cheap professional labour and the opening up of one of the world's biggest markets.
   The first US multinational company to enter India was Texas Instruments, back in 1988.
   At first they faced considerable obstacles in getting data sent back to their head office in the US.
   The Indian Ministry of Communications refused to allow them to set up their own private satellite dish unless a government official was present in the control room of the company's satellite data transmission centre at all times, according to the company's first Indian managing director, Srini Rajam.
   But within a decade all such barriers were swept aside, as the cost of data transmission plunged due to the creation of trans-oceanic fibre optical cable networks. Now more than 500 major international companies have IT operations in Bangalore alone.
   Among the household names are Hewlett-Packard, Dell, IBM, and Accenture.
   Intel's Indian development centre played a key role in the company's strategy to develop new chips for computers which will be compatible with Microsoft's new Vista operating system, which will begin rolling out in January. Mr John McClure of Intel India told the BBC that Intel's new R&D centre ramped up quickly in order to lead in designing Intel's new dual core Centrino chip for laptops.
   Microsoft itself has established one of its three global fundamental research centres in Bangalore - the other two are in China and at Microsoft's HQ in the US. The fact that so many hi-tech companies have located in India can bring broader advantages. "The IT sector has a definite potential for contributing to broad-based growth and broader economic objectives," says
   
   World hub
   It is clear that it is no longer cheap labour that is attracting these companies. In December, Cisco Systems announced a $1.1bn investment in Bangalore, creating 6,000 jobs. It will be run by its new chief globalisation officer, Wim Elfrink. Companies like Cisco see being in India as vital to spotting the next generation of products and services that the company should be making. "We believe that India is the hub for the world where the ICT sector is concerned," said Mr Elfrink.
   Outsourcing: Moving company functions from internal departments to external firms
   Offshoring: Relocating corporate activities overseas.
   Nearshoring: Relocating offshore activities nearer the client's home country
   BPO: Business processing outsourcing - moving white collar tasks like accounting or invoicing to an external firm
   Captive firms: Companies owned by foreign multinationals who perform outsourcing services for the parent firm
   UK call centres/US contact centers: Offices where workers provide telephone customer services like sales.
   - BBC News

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

---

Tory leader questions Tony Blair's 'Britishness' policy

David Cameron

The subject of community cohesion, for understandable reasons, has become prominent in our national conversation over the past few years. But it is a challenge we have faced before: the question of how we live together is as old as humanity itself. Throughout history, there have been periods when Britain has not been entirely comfortable with itself or individual communities within it.
   Who would now question the contribution made by Jewish people to British society - or even talk about there being a conflict between being British and Jewish? And yet, only 50 years ago, this was exactly the debate going on in both the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. More recently, Britain's Irish community was questioning and being questioned about its loyalty to Britain.
   Each time, over time, we have kept our country together by having faith in our institutions and our way of doing things: freedom under the rule of law, a common culture defined by pluralism and tolerance and a distinctively British approach (calm, thoughtful, reasonable) to potentially incendiary issues. The challenge today may have its own specific characteristics, but our approach should be the same. In that context, I am concerned by the direction that the debate on cohesion has taken recently. I believe it is time for a more British approach.
   First, we must not fall for the illusion that the problems of community cohesion can be solved simply through top-down, quick-fix state action. State action is certainly necessary today, but it is not sufficient. Second, it must be the right kind of action, expressed in a calm, thoughtful and reasonable way.
   The doctrine of multiculturalism has undermined our nation's sense of cohesion because it emphasises what divides us rather than what brings us together. It has been manipulated to entrench the right to difference (a divisive concept) at the expense of the right to equal treatment despite difference (a unifying concept). But in seeking to atone for those mistakes, we should not lurch, with the zeal of the convert, into a simplistic promotion of 'Britishness' that is neither in keeping with our traditions, nor likely to bring our communities closer together.
   Yes, we need to ensure that every one of our citizens can speak to each other in our national language. Yes, we need to ensure that our children are taught British history properly. And I do think it is important to create more opportunities for celebrating our sense of nationhood. Unlike Labour, we will set out a clear and consistent path to ensure these things actually happen, starting with our policy review, which will make specific recommendations this week.
   But I think we need to go much deeper than this if we are to address the substantial alienation and division that exist in our country today. It's no use behaving like the proverbial English tourist abroad, shouting ever more loudly at the hapless foreigner who doesn't understand what is being said. We can't bully people into feeling British - we have to inspire them.
   A number of the interventions we have seen from ministers recently have spectacularly failed to do that. Instructing Muslim parents to spy on their children. Offending our war heroes with the proposal of a new 'Veteran's Day' when we already have Remembrance Sunday. Suggesting that we put flags on the lawn. These and similar clunking attempts to address the complexities of community cohesion show a serious misunderstanding of the scale of the challenge, and the shape of the solution. Above all, we have seen a dangerous muddling of concerns: community cohesion, the threat of terrorism and the integration of British Muslims.
   
   Community cohesion
   Promoting community cohesion should indeed be part of our response to terrorism. But cohesion is not just about terrorism and it is certainly not just about Muslims. Similarly, promoting integration will help protect our security. But too mechanistic a connection between these objectives will make it harder to achieve both, by giving the impression that the state considers all Muslims to be a security risk.
   This week's report from our policy review, the product of months of dialogue with Britain's diverse communities, will seek to disentangle these threads and point a clear and responsible way forward. There will be no shying away from the tough issues: the influence of those who twist faith into ideology; the cultural attitudes that exclude women from mainstream society; the impact of foreign policy on domestic affairs; and, vitally, the divisive effects of the catastrophic failure of state education in many parts of urban Britain.
   I want the Conservative party to stand for a broad and generous vision of British identity. In a speech in Birmingham tomorrow, I will argue that questions of social cohesion are also questions of social justice and social inclusion. Cohesion is as much about rich and poor, included and left behind as it is about English and Scot or Muslim and Christian. Inspiring as well as demanding loyalty from every citizen will require a new crusade for fairness. A society that consistently denies some of its people the chance to escape poverty, to get on in life, to fulfil their dreams and to feel that their contribution is part of a national effort: such a society will struggle to inspire loyalty, however many citizenship classes it provides.
   Fairness will be our most powerful weapon against fragmentation. In America, new immigrants feel part of something from the moment they arrive because they feel they have the opportunity to succeed. It is that belief in equal opportunity that we need in Britain today and it is why the denial of quality education to so many is such a vital part of the cohesion argument.
   There is no easy short cut. Having tried to impose democracy in Iraq at the point of a gun, we must surely realise that we will never impose cohesion at home with the ping of a press release. There are serious divisions in our country today. Many thousands - maybe millions - feel shut out, under attack. Turning the situation around will require patience. We must be calm, thoughtful and reasonable: that is the British way.
   Building cohesion is a social responsibility. Government must enforce the rules of the road - speaking English, teaching history, upholding and celebrating the symbols of nationhood - and we will be absolutely clear about what needs to be done. If the government brings forward these measures, they will have our full support.
   But this is about much more than government and politics. We must each do all we can to make this a fairer and more just society - helping others, creating opportunity and ensuring that no one is excluded from it.
   -Courtesy: The Observer, London

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE