Nobel for Good Intentions

I just read that the Nobel Committee has chosen Obama for this year's Nobel Peace Price. Obviously the prize is no longer meant to award achievements which Obama has little of since he was only elected President less than a year ago. Indeed, the citation acknowledged as much:

"Very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said...

Is the bar for qualification so low that merely attracting media attention and offering kind words of hope sufficient? Apparently so. Even the chairman of the Nobel Committee only said that the point of the award was to 'enhance what he is trying to do'. By reducing the criteria to the quantum of publicity and platitudes, the committee has ended up devaluing the prize.

Michael Gerson put it well in the Washington Post today:

Apparently, they now give out a Nobel Peace Prize for good intentions. Unless I have missed something, President Obama has not yet achieved a nuclear free world -- which was also, by the way, Ronald Reagan's good intention. He has not yet achieved peace between Israel and the Palestinians -- a prospect the Israel Foreign Minister recently dismissed as years away. He has not yet tamed the nuclear ambitions of Iran, which has responded to outreach with deception, defiance, bloody crackdowns and missile testing. He has not yet pacified Afghanistan -- preferring, so far, to dither and fidget. He has not yet removed the nuclear threat of North Korea, the world's wackiest, totalitarian nuclear power. He has not yet solved the problems of global warming, achieved a free Tibet, ended the slaughter in Congo, lifted the oppression of Burma or settled the conflict in Darfur.

At first I thought the announcement of the prize was a joke. On further reflection, the Noble Committee has made itself a joke. It has decided to give a ribbon before the race, a trophy for aspiration, a gold star for admirable sentiments. Which means that the decision it made is entirely, purely, solely political. Members of the committee like Obama's goals and rhetoric. And since they aren't American citizens, this is the only way they could vote for him. In the process, they have forfeited any claim to seriousness. Peace -- the kind of peace that keeps people from being killed and oppressed -- is an achievement, not a sentiment. The Noble Peace Prize Committee can no longer distinguish between the two.

Enough Said. Also click here to read interesting reactions to this from around the world.

Update: AP has an piece on the 'Common Misconceptions about the Nobel Peace Prize' where Geir Lundestad, secretary of the prize committee says that the award is not necessarily given for successful efforts but 'to encourage those who receive it to see it through, sometimes at critical moments'.

A One-Sided Story on Iran

Siddharth Varadarajan's report on the Iran issue yesterday was considerably one-sided. To start with, the headline:

"U.S. overshadows G20 summit with Iran nuclear hype"

Whether the Iran nuclear allegation is more prominent news than the G20 summit or not is a matter of opinion, not fact. Since this was supposed to be a news item and not the title of an op-ed, it ought to have been phrased differently.

The text has this to say:

...U.S. officials say Iran had been forced to admit the existence of the new plant because it feared imminent exposure by Western intelligence agencies — an unverifiable claim that has, nevertheless, been dutifully echoed by the American media...

The Pittsburgh announcement was made jointly by the leaders of the US, UK and France (the German Chancellor also apparently associated herself with the remarks: the full text of the remarks may be read here). Firstly, the intelligence agencies of the first three countries have all declared their previous knowledge of this facility. How likely is it that they are all lying? Secondly, the agencies have claimed they have satellite photographs of this facility from as far back as 2006 and it is even less likely that such a specific assertion will be made if such evidence is not being held in the first place. Thirdly, given that Iran's nuclear program has been put in the spotlight in recent years, it should not be all that surprising if Western intelligence agencies have been aware of the existence of this facility for some time. Fourthly, reporters are briefed by government officials all the time and in most cases, the information cannot be cross verified by other means. Do reporters always preface every sentence in such reports saying the claims and assertions are unverifiable (Varadarajan's own recent report on the thermonuclear test is a good example)? Fifthly, governments are more prone to revealing half-truths than outright lies and there may be more to this matter than what the public has been told but that hardly implies that the limited facts released in this instance are wrong.

Next, he makes the argument about its legality. I quote relevant excerpts:

Tehran’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA obliges it only to provide design information “not later than 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material” into a new facility. Indeed, the Iranian government insists it informed the IAEA about the plant in line with its declared intention of being more transparent with the Agency.

The facility is said to be in the preliminary stage of development, with the introduction of uranium still several months away. Any international inspection of the facility could only come after that point, not before. That is why the IAEA never considered the Natanz facility — whose existence was revealed only in 2002 — a violation of Iran’s safeguards agreement.

In 2003, Iran agreed to a modified ‘subsidiary arrangement’ requiring it to inform the IAEA as soon as a decision to construct a new facility was taken. But Tehran withdrew its adherence to the arrangement four years later, in retaliation for U.N. sanctions.

In March 2009, the IAEA’s Legal Adviser was asked by some member governments to qualify in legal terms Iran’s non-implementation of the new disclosure rules. His reply made it clear that there was considerable ambiguity and the matter was not as clear cut as the U.S. and its allies claimed it to be. While Iran could not unilaterally withdraw its adherence to the new arrangement, the Legal Adviser said its actions “should be seen in proper context.” Elaborating, he said that since the old rules had been considered consistent with a country’s safeguards obligations for 22 years, “it is difficult to conclude that providing information in accordance with the earlier formulation in itself constitutes non-compliance with, or breach of, the Safeguards Agreement as such.”

Though Iran may be on a reasonably firm legal ground, the politics of its latest disclosure could swing either way.

All of this is true but it misses the central point of these allegations which ought to have been a vital if not primary element of the story. This facility at Qom was not built in a day. Western agencies have alleged that the construction has been going on at least since 2006, a time when the Iranian government was still bound by the modified subsidiary arrangment it had undertaken to abide by meaning that it ought to have revealed its intent to construct this facility at that time itself. Iran may now claim that its 2003 undertaking was not legally binding but if this allegation is true, it means that Iran violated it before formally withdrawing from it. At the very least, it indicates a serious breach of trust on Iran's part. This element is completely missing from the story.

To many people in India, newspapers are a primary source of their information; they read them to learn what is going on more than to find out additional facts that rebut what they have already learnt elsewhere. This item appears intended not so much to inform an ignorant reader as to present a defense of Iran's position through a one-sided statement of facts.

News Analysis and Factual Reporting: Can The Hindu Tell the Difference?

The Hindu has published several pointless and downright bad articles recently. See today's 'Coping with Winds of Political Hostility' and 'Cromwell's grave revealed' under 'News Analysis'. Amar Singh may have his grievances with the Congress and Mukesh Ambani but that hardly qualifies it to be a 'Leader page article'. Likewise, the revelation of Oliver Cromwell's grave may be an fine titbit for someone interested in English history but there is very little news to be analyzed there. Same goes for yesterday's 'White House vacation: more than light-hearted fare'. A worthwhile news item perhaps but analysis? What is there to analyze in what Obama and his family talk about? The other article yesterday was 'Sunbeds - the surrealistic tan and the cancer'. Copied straight from The Guardian, it does not bother to ask what the relevance of sunbeds is in a country where getting skin cancer from tanning is the least of our worries.

Last Friday was worse. It had an interview with Lance Corporal Joe Glenton, the soldier who refused to follow military orders citing political reasons. What exactly is the message the paper is trying to send out here? That it is acceptable for a soldier to follow one's conscience and refuse perfectly legal orders from superiors? That soldiers who violate military discipline ought to be turned into heroes in the public eye by a journalistic fraternity committed to pacifism? Does The Hindu believe that the situation will become truly wonderful were the coalition forces to leave and be replaced by Mullah Omar and the Taliban? Is that what the paper is now rooting for?

The Chief Editor may be an ardent lover of The Guardian but somehow an ability to discern and select relevant items based on content and context is lacking.

Obama and Afghanistan: The Hindu's Dangerous Policy Advice

Today's editorial 'Obama and Afghanistan' is quite off the mark in both assertions and hopes.

President-elect Barack Obama does seem to understand that greater attention needs to be paid to the non-military dimensions of the policy that the United States has pursued in Afghanistan. He has indicated that he is not averse to the nascent attempts to establish contacts with moderate elements of the Taliban and is said to be inclined to include Iran in the ambit of the peace-making efforts in the region. His focus is likely to incorporate an emphasis on boosting socio-economic development efforts in the war-torn country. Few would dispute that all these steps are not just necessary but long overdue.

I do not quite see any major shift in the US Afghan strategy at this point. Contacting the moderate Taliban in an attempt to win them over has been going on (off and on actually) for some time now and there is nothing new about that. Bringing Iran into the picture would be an important shift but is not going to happen anytime soon until American engagement with Iran picks up and leads to major confidence-building measures. Boosting socio-economic development is something that has been tried since 2001 - millions have poured into development activities in the NWFP and the tribal areas. In fact, the region has not seen the kind of construction ever since the first Afghan war winded down following the departure of the Soviet Union in 1989. I fail to see what exactly Obama is going to change in all of this. It seems more like The Hindu wants to deny George Bush the credit for these steps.

Even the Bush administration, which has for too long been overly dependent on strong-arm methods, appears to be waking up to reality since it has ordered an intensive inter-departmental reappraisal of available intelligence in order to generate a range of options for its successor. But while all this is to the good, there is a risk that the “Obama effect” on international affairs could derail the process of evolving a more nuanced approach.

The Hindu wants a 'nuanced' approach instead of a strong-armed one. What exactly is this alternative?

Over the past year and more, U.S. military commanders in charge of this theatre have tried to persuade NATO allies to contribute more troops to the Afghan operations. These efforts have not met with much success because the allies were fearful of being roped into supporting roles for the Bush administration’s belligerence. However, with Mr. Obama soon to take office,there are indications that the allies might relent.

The paper is worried that European countries might contribute troops and the outlook for the anti-Taliban forces might actually improve! By the way, its explanation for European reluctance to contribute troops is not really the Bush administration's belligerence. Even European countries realize that stabilizing Afghanistan is in their interest. It is more their inability to do so - the small families and falling birth rates in European countries have made the people fearful of losing their only children. Coupled with the pacifist sentiment of a continent still recoiling from the horrors of the two world wars, public antipathy to any greater role in the Afghan conflict has made it difficult for their governments to get involved any further. Owing to these domestic reasons, The Hindu can stop worrying - it is unlikely that a lot of additional help will be forthcoming even to an Obama administration. In fact, press reports indicate that their diplomats have already signaled to his advisers not to expect it and therefore to avoid asking them in the first place.

If there is a substantial increase in the number of U.S. and NATO troops on the ground, tactical options such as raids on Taliban and Al Qaeda hide-outs across the Durand Line, would become more feasible. The question is whether at that point in time Mr. Obama will be able to resist resorting to the “bad cop” part of the Afghan strategy he outlined during the course of the election campaign. NATO-member states and other allies are highly unlikely to contribute more troops unless there is clear agreement on the rules of engagement. It is inconceivable that any of them, including the United Kingdom, would allow its troops to be used for military operations inside Pakistan’s territory. The allies would prefer to be involved only in programmes to train Kabul’s security forces although some might agree to participate in counter-insurgency operations. However, their presence would provide scope for the U.S. military to consider more adventurist options. The international community has a responsibility to clearly define the limits of intervention in this context so that Mr. Obama is warned against succumbing to pressure for an adventurist strategy well before he finalises his Afghan policy.

So The Hindu is worried that Obama might pursue an adventurist policy! He might be tempted to cross the Durand line and attack inside northwest Pakistan. And horror of horrors, NATO support might tacitly lead him to it! No. The Hindu would prefer him to limit US involvement strictly to the north of the Durand line much like our own failed counter-insurgency strategy in Kashmir. For over a decade and a half, the Indian army fought terrorist infiltration in Kashmir but was unable to end the scourge because of the constant flow of infiltrators freshly trained in PoK camps managing to cross the LoC to enter the Indian side. What was the success rate with that strategy? Quite poor if I remember correctly. The rate of infiltration ebbed and flowed but never stopped. Now The Hindu wants Obama to replicate the same failed strategy to fight the Taliban - never mind that leading terrorists remain happily ensconced in their mansions on the outskirts of Peshawar and firmly in control of some of the major towns like Bajaur and Swat but America has an absolute obligation to respect Pakistani territorial sovereignty and must under no circumstances act against these people even if they are dedicated to reviving the Taliban in Afghanistan.

If there is one thing that has goaded the Pakistani military into action in recent times, it is the fear of the alternative, namely the threat of unilateral American attack. American drones are already attacking Taliban safehouses as part of a less-than-secret agreement with the Pakistani military. Now The Hindu wants to abandon this strategy that with all its pitfalls has yielded mixed results in favor of one that is guaranteed to fail. The results of course would be no less than disastrous for India. Were the Taliban to succeed in maintaining their strength in all their current strongholds, it not only spells doom for the Karzai government but will be such a morale booster to the Kashmiri fighters that India can expect a renewed and resurgent insurgency at our doorstep ready to go all the way with even more potent weaponry and a much more ambitious agenda that will aim at nothing less than dismemberment of India.

Clearly, the paper is very anxious to lay the groundwork for such a calamitous future. Obama though is very smart and his advisers are surely better informed than to accept such stupid and dangerous advice. He has promised in the past that the Afghan war is an important priority for him and he will do everything to ensure that the region is stabilized. Today he reiterated that his aim is to wind down troops in Iraq so as to be able to make more provisions to send them to Afghanistan. In light of what India has invested in the Karzai dispensation, that is a welcome step which sends a message of continued engagement in this volatile region. The Hindu's advice of course needs to be treated with the contempt it deserves.

The Hindu's Take on the US Presidential Election

Today's editorial made a salient point with particular reference to the potential victory of Barack Obama in tomorrow's US Presidential election: the failure of affirmative action policies directed at ensuring inclusiveness of minorities in relatively more liberal and leftist European countries in contrast to the more limited, libertarian approach of the right-leaning United States. And yet, most political ideas that The Hindu continues to favor are policies based on European simulacra, particularly the rigidly secular French model. If the paper is so acutely aware of the failure of these policies, why then does it insist upon trying the same in our country?

K.V.Prasad compares our very own Mayawati to Barack Obama. Apart from the fact that they both hail from backward communities in their respective countries, there is very little that is common to both of them. Obama understands issues well and has chalked out proposals to deal with many of them. In contrast, Mayawati, though a powerful populist, has been running the UP government whimsically making decisions that are anything but reasoned and devoting considerable effort to deifying herself. Despite her failure as an administrator and a leader, the Left's fascination for her seems to be growing by the day and so is The Hindu's. What exactly does she have to offer to anyone apart from more quotas for everyone and ban orders against anyone displeasing her base? It seems that she is perhaps more akin to Sarah Palin - quite popular amongst her base but so whimsical as to be pretty much a blank slate in every other respect with very weak ideas of her own. Which is why the CPI(M) is willing to work with her. She is the ideal candidate who can provide the party with a face, the perfect mask behind which its dangerous and diabolical agendas can be put into practice without eliciting much of a reaction from the rest of the political crowd.

Hindu's Erroneous Take on the American Right

Friday's editorial in the Hindu on Barack Obama says:

Mr. Obama then fell into a rhetorical trap while speaking about white working class voters, a block whose support will be crucial in the tests ahead. In his essentially accurate yet insensitively expressed view, these voters “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” in order to overcome the bitterness wrought by their economic conditions.

Read Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times for a convincing refutation of this thesis. Krugman is no right-wing zealot. In fact, many of his economic ideas are the staple of leftist thought. The Hindu has published columns making the same claim before. In fact, the notion that economic woes are at the root of all political sentiment is the cornerstone of Marxist dogma. Compelling as it is, Krugman provides evidence that at least as applied in this manner, the view is simplistic and plainly erroneous.