Why is the right winning?

The past couple of years have been difficult for the Left liberals, in many countries. The Right has been gaining ground at the expense of a declining Left. The latest shock comes of course from the world’s oldest democracy, the US. The urban Americans were so shocked by a Trump win, that they took out protest rallies in major cities. Incidents of arson and vandalism were reported from many cities.

A New York Times report from May 2016 catalogued the rise of Right Wing and Far Right parties gaining traction in Europe. In countries like Germany where Right Wing parties seldom found any following, in the post war era, saw the rise of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), a Right Wing populist party. Since 2014, AfD has won seats in ten out of the sixteen states in Germany. In France, Marine Le Pen’s Front National made inroads by winning seats in municipal and regional elections. The Telegraph, after the win of Donald Trump, reported that there is a chance that Marine Le Pen can actually win the French Presidency in 2017. Hungary has of course seen a steady support to its Right Wing coalition which came to power in 2010 and retained its majority in 2014.

The resurgence of Right Wing in Europe is not limited to large prosperous countries like Germany, France and the UK (which opted out of EU earlier this year in a popular referendum). Smaller countries like Netherland have also witnessed rise of Far Right parties like Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom, better known by its Dutch acronym PVV. The party has representations in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In Austria, which saw the horrors of Second World War, Freedom Party won 35% votes in the first round of 2016 Presidential elections. It is indeed surprising that the region, which suffered the most under the Fascist regimes of Hitler and Mussolini would vote and elect Right Wing or Far Right parties. The question is why is this happening? The answer may lie in plain sight.

For too long after the Second World War, European and American politics tilted towards Left liberal politics, irrespective of the affiliations of the party in power. It was the era of political correctness and living in guilt of the War. It was also the time when decolonisation reached its peak with African and Asian colonies gaining self-rule. The Russian Revolution had established its stronghold on Russia and Central Asia and was now exporting Socialism to other parts of the world. The concept of equality and an egalitarian society were gaining currency. Just when the countries were coming out of the miseries of the War the Socialist movement swept the world. The Unions brought the UK to its knees, Germany reeled under the terror of Red Army Faction. Eastern Europe was for all practical purpose a puppet of Russia.

Before one starts fearing the change, it is necessary that one realizes that the Right Wing and Far Right of twenty first century is not gunning for mass murder. The invocation of Fascism by a large section of media to draw parallels with the current resurgence of Right wing movements is pure exaggeration at the least and fearmongering at worst. The section of media, which involves in scaremongering does so based on emotions and not on facts. It should be noted that in post war Europe and a large part of Asia the constitution of many countries went through changes and created robust institutions. The only exceptions are Monarchies and despotic Communist regimes. Power is no longer concentrated in one person and the complex web of multilateral institutions, trade blocs and intergovernmental bodies like the UN have created dependencies and control mechanisms.

Yes, I will ban burka by leaning a little on the Right.
Image credit - NorthBridge Times

So why is the Right winning? There are many reasons this can be attributed to. The prime reason being falling standards of living as a result of economic decline. Low fertility rates and emergence of Asia as the new hub of economic growth pushed many European countries and the US into an era of extremely slow growth. Large scale immigration from war torn countries of the Middle East and North Africa has caused social tensions and fear of additional economic hardship for the locals. To top it all the so called “reputed” and “respected” media is treading the “liberal” voice where left leaning policies are the solution to everything and fear of immigrants is simply put, bigotry. What the liberals do not realise is that there is considerable discrepancy between the media and voters’ opinion.

For too long people have heard the manufactured opinion of the media and have learnt to tell truth from propaganda. They see their own standards of living falling and fear for their children’s future. The dislike for the liberal policies is more because the same liberals have failed them in the past. The welfare state created by the past governments has made people dependent on the state and created a bloated bureaucracy. With falling growth prospects and fewer people entering the workforce, the welfare state started shrinking. More people were left to fend for themselves and the safety cushion provided by the state started crumbling.

With technology, access to information and news is easier than it was in the last decade. Social media has pushed news and opinion into our workplace, cafes, restaurants and bedrooms. This has led to a sharp polarization in public opinion. People are divided on ideological lines. While the elite toes the liberal line of an egalitarian society where immigrants are welcomed with open arms. The commoners want freedom from their miseries and hence look up to the Right, which promises them jobs, security, social order and more recently a reduction in immigration. The truth is that the elite will always have a louder voice but common people will have a higher vote share. And this is perhaps why the Right is winning.

The deal – what it means to India and South Asia

At last

Twenty months of negotiations, threats and diplomacy has led to a deal, which will stop Iran from acquiring weapon grade Uranium. The details of the deal are still trickling in. According to this CNN report, “The deal reduces the number of Iranian centrifuges by two-thirds. It places bans on enrichment at key facilities, and limits uranium research and development to the Natanz facility. The deal caps uranium enrichment at 3.67 percent and limits the stockpile to 300 kg, all for 15 years. Iran will be required to ship spent fuel out of the country forever, as well as allow inspectors from the IAEA inspectors certain access in perpetuity. Heightened inspections, including tracking uranium mining and monitoring the production and storage of centrifuges, will last for up to 20 years. The U.S. estimates that the new measures take Iran from being able to assemble its first bomb within 2-3 months, to at least one year from now”.

 

Three decades of animosity between Iran and the US, due to political intervention of the latter and an unprecedented hostage crisis during the revolution, seems to be thawing. The deal of course means a lot to Iranian economy (the full impact of the deal will only be felt once the sanctions are lifted next year), it also has the potential to influence much of South Asian geo-politics and economy. Iran has the fourth largest proven oil reserves in the world but exported only 2.3 million barrels a day, against 6.2 million barrels a day (2014 data; US EIA) by Saudi Arabia. The sanctions significantly reduced the exports and forced Iran to store millions of barrels of crude in floating tankers in the Persian Gulf.

 

The future – India

Once the sanctions are lifted, Iran will increase production and export. The oil prices already under pressure from a weak demand and oversupply might see a further decrease in prices. Assuming the diplomatic relations between US and Iran will improve progressively and the deal will hold, it is possible that Iran will provide US access to its ports in the Persian Gulf. It may also offer surface connectivity, enabling the NATO to supply its forces in Afghanistan. These two possibilities have the potential to change things for better, for India.

 

With over 80% of its energy needs being imported, India will stand to benefit immensely by cheaper crude prices. India ran a bill of USD 112.7 billion on oil imports in 2014-15 A price drop of even a single dollar per barrel translates into a billion dollars saved. A substantial drop will provide India with a windfall gain, making precious financial resources available for development work.

 

Indian business also stands to benefit from a sanctions free Iran. ONGC Videsh Ltd. discovered a gas filed in the Persian Gulf (Farzad-B) with an estimated reserves of 21.7 trillion cubic feet. The operating contract (with ONGC Videsh owning 60% stake) was never signed due to international sanctions. The situation will change once the sanctions are gradually lifted next year.

 

The future – Pakistan

On the other hand a friendlier Iran may also mean access to US and NATO supplies to Afghanistan. In the past a hostile Iran made Pakistan the sole point of transit for almost all NATO supplies. The heavy dependence on Pakistan lead to billions of dollars being paid to the army and civil administration by America. The money thus paid found its way to funding various terror groups. The fact that Pakistani establishment sponsored terrorism has long been established by both international governments and strategic research scholars. Professor Christine Fair of Georgetown University in her book, fighting to the end gives a well-researched account of Pakistani army, the ISI and past dictators who indulged in funding Jihad.

 

The dependence on Pakistan to serve its goals in Afghanistan, remains a major reason why the US funds Pakistan. Possibility of an alternate route from Iran puts Pakistan in a situation where the American aid dollars might dry up sooner than expected. While cheaper crude will help India fund its poverty elevation programme, a fund crunch in Pakistan might force it to scale down its terror funding.

 

The hope

What really happens is a question that will get answered only in the future, as and when sanctions are removed and how US engages Iran. But there is a clear opportunity for India to scale up its civilizational ties with Iran and turn them into mutually beneficial business relations. A rejuvenated foreign policy and a business friendly government have the potential to make the transition. Hassan Rouhani as a chief guest at Rajpath, for next Republic Day might do India a lot of favour.

Inside the USCIRF - The people, the commission and their selective list

We have an agenda, do you know what it is?

Later this month the US Commission on International Religious Freedom will come up with its 2015 report. The media will offer it extensive coverage to the findings of the report, like it did in the past. Last year the commission placed India in its tier II list, along with Afghanistan, Russia, Indonesia, Turkey and five other countries. The Tier II is a category where there is some degree of concern on religious freedom. The other categories being, Tier I with “particular concerns” and the milder, “other countries and regions" mostly in Western Europe. The list of countries exclude the entire Americas, except for Venezuela, Cuba and French Guiana. It also excludes all countries in North Africa, except for Egypt and Sudan.

 

It’s interesting why some countries are excluded from the list while some like French Guiana (with a population of 250,000) are included in the list. But before giving that a thought, let us see who the people behind the commission are. The commission is a bipartisan organization, enacted by law, with members appointed by both the Republicans and Democrats. It essentially means that both parties get to drive their agenda. Here is a short introduction of the Chair, Vice Chair and the Commissioners.

Name and Designation	Best known for	Appointed by
Dr. Katrina Lantos Swett, Chair	President of Lantos Foundation, daughter of the only Holocaust survivor elected to the US House of Representative	Democrat, Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader
Dr. Robert P. George, Vice Chair	Most influential conservative Christian, opposition to same sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, anti-abortion	Republican, Speaker of the House John Boehner
Dr. James J. Zogby, Vice Chair	Founder of Arab American Institute, subtly justified Muslim outrage against the Danish cartoons	Barack Obama, president of US
Dr. M. Zuhid Jasser, Commissioner	President of American Islamic Forum, served as medical officer in US Navy	Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Professor Mary Ann Glendon, Commissioner	Former US ambassador to Vatican, consultant to the US council of Catholic Bishops, refused to share stage with Obama for his alleged anti-Catholic views	Republican, Mitch McConnell Senate Minority Leader
Dean. Eric P. Schwartz, Commissioner	Former assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration, dean of Hubert Humphrey School of public affairs	Barack Obama, President of US
Dr. Daniel I Mark, Commissioner	Professor at Vilanova University, works with Tikvah Fund, formerly taught at Yeshiva University	Republican, John Boehner, Speaker of the House
Rev. Thomas J. Reese, Commissioner	Catholic Jesuit priest, believes in missionary activities, member of the Society of Jesus	Barack Obama, President of US
Hannah Rosenthal, Commissioner	Head of Jewish Council for Public Affairs, combats anti-Semitism, works for other Jewish matters	Democrat, Minority leader US house of representatives, Nancy Pelosi.

 

An institution claiming to look at the religious freedom of other countries, which are more diverse and multicultural than the country it is based in, has virtually no religious diversity in its own management. The people representing the commission are either conservative Christians or Jews who work for Jewish cause. Of course there is a token Muslim face.

It will be unfair to assume that Christians or Jews are not capable of judging the religious freedoms of countries with Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Atheist or Hindu populations. But one should be concerned when the people on the board have clear conflict of interest. How is an ultra-orthodox Dr. George or Professor Glendon supposed to view religious freedoms in other countries when they themselves espouse opinions which are contrary to other people’s freedom (anti-abortion or dislike for a President’s views on Church)? How is a Dr. Swett or Ms. Rosenthal or Dr. Mark supposed to judge other countries when all that they do is to further only the Jewish cause (Dr. Swett however does some work on human rights by awarding meagre grants of USD 500 – USD 2,500)?

The exclusions & inclusions

The list includes most of the Middle Eastern countries in its tier I list, which is hardly surprising given their harsh rules to suppress other religions. But surprisingly it excludes the rich kingdoms of United Arab Emirates and Qatar, which offer next to nothing when it comes to freedom of speech or basic human rights let alone freedom of religion. Both monarchies happen to be flush with oil, gas and cash, a key American requirement. It also excludes the war torn Yemen where sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni Muslims has claimed thousands of lives in the past years. Apparently religious freedoms of failed countries is not important. Israel, a country that blatantly discriminates against its Muslim Arabs is not on any of the three categories. No surprises here.

The commission has put most west European countries on its list. This is primarily because the European secular and human rights laws are apparently at odds with view of American religious freedoms. Banning of religious symbols in public by France, or protests by activists against male genital mutilation, also known as circumcision, in other European countries is a terrible cause of concern for America. A country, which has passed a law on religious freedom at federal and state level, with potential to be abused against other religions and communities.

Strangely enough Cuba and Venezuela (both with majority Christian population and hardly any religious diversity) feature in the list. The only reason for their inclusion is their communist government, which is not friends with Uncle Sam. Poor French Guiana is there just because France is on the list. What is also interesting is to see why Morocco (with its national motto, “Allah, Homeland, King”) is not on the list but Egypt is, or why the Philippines with its Christian-Muslim conflict is not on the list but Vietnam is? It will not be unfair to say that most of the times the concern boils down to the presence of Christians in the countries. So while Morocco with hardly any Christian population is off the list, Egypt with Coptic Christians is in the list. A Catholic majority Philippines is out but Vietnam (a communist country) with a Christian population is in. Another reason why countries make it to the list is to further the agenda of the missionaries working in those countries. The evangelical and proselytization activities by the missionaries, like the Joshua Project in India, will find special attention from the ultra-orthodox members of the commission.

One of the main objectives of the commission is to use the information and rankings as a tool of America’s foreign policy. It is no surprise that countries, which the American government wants to deal with but finds it difficult are on the list.  The commission serves the two pronged strategy of furthering the religious agenda of the ultra-orthodox Christians in America and the department of state of the US government.

So the next time you read the report released by the commission (most likely on 30^th April) or its coverage by the print and electronic media make sure you know what the commission really is. It is a tool like many other to further vested interest of individuals, organisations and the US government.

India and its oil policy

India’s foreign policy has ruffled a few feathers of late. Largely restrained and reactionary the Ministry of External Affairs has been working overtime to secure India’s energy interests. The global oil markets are going through a rough patch. Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz; South Sudan stopped oil production in early January, loss of Syrian oil because of embargoes, drop in exports from Yemen due to strikes and closure of North Sea rigs due to repairs; all this has lead to a situation of panic in the global oil market. The Economist reported that all these disruptions have shaved off 1.25 million barrels a day of crude output globally. The situation might improve later in the year with most of the production resuming, however this is a clear signal to net oil importing economies that a small disruption in the supply chain can cause serious troubles at home.

India imports 80% of its fuel requirements and offers subsidies on diesel, kerosene and cooking gas. The provisions towards fuel subsidy in the budget of 2012-13 are Rs. 43,580 crores (USD 8.5 billion, at Rs 51.15 for a Dollar). Any increase in crude price will have a huge impact on India’s fuel bill. With a fast growing economy India cannot afford to be caught in a situation where its energy requirements are compromised with. At present India imports a lot of oil from the Middle East, Saudi Arabia being the largest exporter, followed by Iran. Together Saudi Arabia and Iran contribute one third of India’s imports, making India heavily dependent on these two countries. With uncertainty looming large over the region, India has rightly decided to revisit its global oil policy.

To diversify its oil basket India has started exploring other options. There are three instances where India has taken a stand contrary to its established foreign policy. The overseas arm of ONGC has engaged in off-shore exploration in South China Sea. China for long has claimed sovereignty over most of the South China Sea sighting historical evidences. In later 2011 and early 2012, China has raised concerns over Indian expeditions in the region. China also terms the Indian endeavours as provocative and urges restrain. So far the Chinese statements on this matter have been restrained and a direct reference to India is not made. On the other hand Chinese neighbours like Vietnam (which claims the oil reserves to be in its Exclusive Economic Zone), Taiwan, The Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia and Thailand all have territorial disputes over the South China Sea. Some political commentators describe this region as the most dangerous point of conflict in the region. India’s attempt to seek commercial and strategic foothold in such a region is clearly unprecedented.

In early days of April 2012, India appointed as special envoy for Sudan and South Sudan, again a departure from India’s established foreign policy. For the first time India has categorically mentioned its oil needs as the prime reason for appointing a special envoy. Press statements quote ministry officials saying, "There were three main reasons to send a special envoy - ensure our oil interests are protected, communicate our support for the peace initiative between the two nations and strengthen our technical support to them." India is also challenging the Chinese claims of setting up an alternate pipeline through Kenya in less than two years time.

Lets talk crude

Of all attempts made by India to secure its energy needs the manoeuvres with Iran are the most interesting. International pressure on an Iranian oil embargo is such that it is impossible to pay for Iranian oil through conventional means of bank transfers. The US and EU have banned the payment mechanism in place in Dubai and have delisted all Iranian banks from the SWIFT facility (an electronic funds transfer facility). India as maintained that it will not stop its oil imports from Iran (so have China, Russia, South Korea and Japan). India is now exploring mechanisms to pay for Iranian oil in Rupees. There are technical difficulties in doing so (including many from the Iranian side), however India and Iran are trying to work together to find a solution. In the mean while government of India has announced tax breaks for exports to Iran done in Rupees. The Indian exports will be used to pay for Iranian oil.

These may be considered as bold steps by the Indian government, especially given the fact that they might annoy India’s two largest trade partners, the US and China. But these steps are also testimony to the fact that India is slowly but surely asserting itself in the global geopolitics. The far reaching implications of these actions are not clear as of now, however what is clear is the short term gain. India might get cheap oil from Iran, since less people are buying from it. This might prove to be a breather for a government which is unpopular with masses and high oil price is one of the reasons.