Is it still about the Yellowcake?

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has finally taken a stance on Iran's nuclear programme. The IAEA report dated February 18, 2010, in attitude, tone and judgment subtly supports the concerns being voiced over Iran's intentions of going nuclear, militarily. All that one would hope at this point is that this report is not a mere consequential action to all the anxiety.

The history of Iran's nuclear program is intriguing when reviewed under the current circumstances. The foundations of the nuclear program was laid when in 1953, Shah (King) Mohammad Reza Pahlavi toppled a "democratically" elected government with the help of the CIA. Following this, a civil nuclear co-operation program was established under the "United States" Atoms for Peace program. Reactors were set up in Iran for synthesis of nuclear power for civil purposes. With close ties to the US then, Iran attracted investments from companies in the US as well as companies from Europe. (specifically the Bonn based firm Kraftwerk Union AG)
All was hunky dory in this arrangement with billions being invested by Iran for nuclear support until 1979. The Iranian revolution of 1979 overthrew the Shah putting an end to the Pahlavi dynasty. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution replaced the Shah as the supreme leader of Iran. The dramatic change of Iran from being a pro-western monarchy to an Islamist republic alarmed the US. US foreign policy towards Iran following the revolution was uncertain and non-committal. In the midst of this confusion, things turned sour with the detaining of 52 American diplomats by a revolutionary Iranian group in 1979 which was followed by the Iran-Iraq war of 1980 where the United States provided ample support to Iraq. Relations between United States and Iran have never got better.

Another dimension to this period of history is the birth of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (NPT) The NPT was proposed by Ireland with Finland being the first nation to sign the treaty in 1968. Subsequently, all members of the UN Security Council, the then declared Nuclear powers, signed and endorsed the treaty. Iran signed it as well; India, Pakistan and Israel refused to amongst the major countries.
The signing of the NPT to the member nations meant that

• While synthesis of Nuclear energy for civilian purposes was accepted, all civilian nuclear facilities of member nations were to be placed under IAEA regulations. Any sort of irregularity with IAEA standards would immediately be recognised as non-compliance.
• The treaty banned all member nations from testing nuclear devices for military purposes.
• The treaty banned all member nations from any sort of trade or co-operation with non-member nations towards synthesis of nuclear energy, even if it was for civilian purposes.

Signing of the NPT treaty meant that all of the nuclear reactors that were being set up with Western help in Iran would be subject to regular IAEA inspections. This also meant that Iran could never develop an Atom bomb, which was sincerely endorsed by Iran's supreme leader Khomeini who issued a fatwa against development of nuclear energy for military purposes. This is a view still maintained by Iran's supreme leader.
The deviation of Iran's nuclear policy on NPT guidelines was first reported by the IAEA in September 2005. This report, finding Iran guilty of non-compliance, in IAEA standards, was a rare non-consensus report from the IAEA board of governers with 12 abstentions. This inconclusive report proved to be the basis on which the UN Security council called for increased sanctions against Iran.

With this backdrop, one has to wonder if member nations like Iran were better off not signing the NPT. Two countries, India and Pakistan, which refused to sign the NPT went on to develop Nuclear bombs. The World community immediately threw in sanctions on the two countries. These sanctions proved to have very little repercussions on the two countries with all sanctions being lifted off within 5 years. India, went on to sign the Nuclear deal with the United States which now enables it to procure fuel and technology for its Civilian nuclear reactors. With this, India became the first non-NPT member to be allowed to trade in the world Nuclear market. The only condition placed on India was to place its Civilian nuclear reactors under IAEA regulations. Nothing was said on its military nuclear reactors. India, Pakistan and Israel (which has an opaque nuclear policy) neither signed the NPT nor bore the brunt of World criticism.

So what actions of Iran has suddenly sparked Nuclear panic? To begin with, Iran's pro-Islamic nature since the revolution has never gone down well with the United States. Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hasn't been shy in criticizing US foreign policy in the middle east. In fact, Ahmadinejad has effectively used his anti-West stance to gain considerable political mileage in Iran. While Ahmadinejad might not really be building nuclear bombs, he has definitely contributed to an agitated environment. While Khomeini has always maintained that building nuclear bombs is anti-Islamic, Ahmadinejad has been a little brash.
While these are political dimensions to the crisis, the actual facts of Iran's nuclear program as such provide no further evidence of Iran developing a nuclear bomb. IAEA has always maintained that Iran does not possess a nuclear bomb nor at the moment have the capabilities to develop one. The National Intelligence Estimate of the United States has pointed out that Iran seemed to have intentions for a military nuclear program in 2003 and also mentioned that this has been shelved by Iran's government thereafter. One of the arguments that the West have always stood by, of course with evidence that can be corroborated, is the fact that Iran has been enhancing its enrichment capabilities continuously. Iran haven't denied the fact that they have started enriching Uranium from the 3% level to a 20% level. But, again Iran argues that this rise is only to make its civilian facilities more efficient. It has to be mentioned here that enrichment of nuclear fuel for civilian purposes is a right that NPT member nations enjoy as long as it does not reach the 90% level required for a bomb.
From an IAEA point of view, Iran has been criticised for not facilitating inspection of their nuclear facilities. This non-conformist attitude can be attributed to either of the two factors. One, that Iran views the IAEA as an organisation of the West equating defiance to insecurity. Two, by not co-operating with this organisation, Ahmadinejad gains political mileage in his country and in the Islamic world.

As important as it is for Ahmadinejad and Iran in general to exercise restraint, it is also extremely vital for the IAEA to remain unbiased and pragmatic. Any inconsistency in handling the Iranian nuclear issue will only alienate Iran further, with catastrophic consequences. Taking all the evidence at hand, the reactions of the UN Security Council (barring China and to an extent Russia) has been unfairly critical and anxious. The administrations of the Unites States, UK and NATO in general have lost a lot of credibility post their theories of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which are yet to be found. And this mistrust is not just outside, not just in the Islamic World, but even at home.

PS:

• In terms of proven Oil reserves, Iran ranks third accounting for 10% of oil reserves in the World. Iraq is fourth.
• Seven years after US led NATO invasion of Iraq, Exxon and Shell have been granted access to Iraqi Oil fields.
• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575024681706256198.htm

Mis-representation with Post-Poll alliances

The Indian General Elections 2009 are in full swing. Political parties have fielded their best strategists to embrace as many political parties as possible to formulate the strongest of the coalitions. Amidst the frenzy of pre-poll alliances, ideologies of Political parties are seen to be lacking. And if you don't have the numbers to form the Government on the 16th of May, 2009, deal makers can start hunting again to forge post-poll alliances. The question is how much of electoral choice gets represented in the final government?

Maurice Duverger, the French sociologist made three distinct observations about the relationship between the electoral system & the ensuing characterisation of that system. He stated that
1. a majority vote on one ballot is conducive to a two-party system.
2. proportional representation is conducive to a multiparty system.
3. a majority vote on two ballots is conducive to a multiparty system, inclined toward forming coalitions.

The essence of Duverger's laws barring the second statement above aimed at explaining the phenomenon of under-representation in a democracy with a plurality voting system. This under-representation can be understood through a simple example. Consider three political parties A, B & C where A's & B's ideology match while C differs in ideology. Assuming the total percentage of votes garnered by A & B is 30% each of the total votes while C garners the remaining 40%. In the "simple-plurality" or "the first past the post" voting system, the winner in this case would be C. Here, even if the electorate choice is A's & B's ideology, due to a division of votes between the two, the party C whose ideology is less preferred goes on to form the government thus leading to a gross under-representation of the electorate. If this occurs in a democracy with a single balloting, then in the subsequent elections the smaller of the two parties, A or B, would either merge into the bigger party or just wither away leaving two major parties to contest the elections. (This is the first law) If the democracy has a two-balloting system, then during the second phase of balloting, the two parties A & B would be inclined to form a coalition. (This is the third law)

Now, with Duverger's observations having been proved time & again through the functioning of democracies around the World, the trend of Coalition politics in India requires probably an amendment to Duverger's observations. While Duverger's observations mention coalitions & alliances, it concentrates more on the pre-poll rather than post-poll alliances. While Duverger's concern was under-representation, an Indian voter today should be more concerned about post-poll alliances & "mis-representation".

The Indian political scene is in a state of disarray with the formation of multiple coalitions & the prospects of a hung parliament looming large. While a few years back it was argued that Indian democracy was once again proving Duverger's first law right, with its single balloting & moving toward a two-bloc system (not necessarily a two-party system) through two major coalitions the UPA & the NDA, these observations can be quashed with multiple coalitions already announced before the 2009 elections. While these pre-poll alliances can be justified, how does one justify a post-poll alliance? When a Political party goes out on a campaign seeking votes based on a certain agenda, isn't it imperative that they stick to that agenda if they are voted to power. Do post-poll alliances ensure that the agenda & promises made to the electorate is retained? How does a voter who goes to the election to vote for a coalition (not necessarily a political party in the current scene) assure himself that this coalition would stay with neither addition nor disintegration after the elections? Today, if one goes out and votes for the BJD or the projected RJD, LJP, SP alliance or the new alliances in the South between AIADMK-PMK, none of which are in a position to form a Government in New Delhi on their own; how does one decide where they would go post elections? Obviously, these parties & coalitions have to align themselves to either the Party or Coalition in power or towards the Opposition. The Power of the electorate ends with the Voting while the System provides the political parties the leverage to align themselves wherever they wish to. Isn't it "un-democratic" to expect the electorate to vote with no information provided on the party's final stance in Parliament?

If a voter votes for a Party or Coalition with a certain ideology propagated pre-poll, there is no guarantee that the ideology is retained post-poll. This can lead to nothing but huge "Mis-representation" of electoral choice in the final Government. Bring about an amendment to the Constitution which makes this dirty opportunism unlawful. Catch a Coalition, Party or an Individual in the Political scene standing up for that.