Blowin' In The Wind

Deal for uranium, not reactors?

Contrary to what the communists say, the Indo-US civilian nuclear energy agreement is not really about boosting US nuclear reactor sales, reports Wall Street Journal. US companies may not be all that eager to do business with India until it establishes a sufficient amount of Indian nuclear damage
liability coverage, it says. Given India's horrific experience with the
American-built Union Carbine chemical-plant accident at Bhopal, when
this will occur is anybody's guess, it adds.

The Journal then goes on to say:

All of which raises the question, if this "peaceful"
nuclear deal isn't to pump up U.S. reactor sales, just what is it
about? One could argue that India could use more foreign uranium. It's
recently run so low on domestic fuel that it's had to reduce the power
production level of its civilian reactors significantly. It also needs
foreign uranium because its own uranium production has remained
relatively flat, while its civilian and military requirements have
risen.

This is where the trouble begins. It turns out that
fuelling India's civilian reactors with foreign fuel is not all that
peaceful. As K. Subrahmanyam, former head of India's National Security
Advisory board noted, "Given India's uranium ore crunch . . . it is to
India's advantage to categorize as many power reactors as possible as
civilian ones to be refueled by imported uranium and conserve our
native uranium fuel for weapons grade plutonium production."

India, however, doesn't need more weapons to keep up
with Pakistan; it needs more and better ones to match China. That's why
India has been developing intercontinental range ballistic missiles --
weapons that could use more, smaller, lighter, efficient advanced
thermonuclear warheads. This, in turn, is why India's hawks are so
interested in resuming nuclear testing.

The Journal adds:

The U.S. certainly should not finalize
the deal until either India agrees it should stop upgrading its arsenal
significantly or we clearly decide that we no longer care if it does.

But as India's Hindustan Times reports:

The 123 agreement, unveiled yesterday, is silent on
nuclear testing by India but makes it clear that the pact will not
hinder or hamper New Delhi's military nuclear programme.

The 40-year agreement, extendable by 10 years, commits the US to
ensure uninterrupted fuel supplies to Indian reactors.

"Either party (country) shall have the right to terminate this
agreement prior to its expiration on one year's written notice to the
other party," says the 22-page text of the pact reached last month.

Going by newspaper reports, this is the best deal India could get.

The Wall Street Journal says the Bush administration is so keen on the agreement that:

The U.S. actually has been twisting arms at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, threatening to
leave and so dissolve the group if countries critical of the India deal
did not fall into line on India.

Indian communists will of course continue opposing any agreement with the US. But the Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party is surely being bloodyminded in opposing the deal, claiming it will undermine the Indian nuclear weapons programme.

The Wall Street Journal says:

In the next few weeks, India is also expected to
submit a safeguards agreement before the IAEA Board of Governors in
Vienna. India will make a unilateral statement aimed at reserving its
right to expel IAEA inspectors from reactor sites if the U.S., or other
fuel suppliers, suspend nuclear fuel shipments for any reason --
including Indian resumption of testing. Indian officials are also
likely to plead for nuclear fuel supply guarantees so the country can
stockpile uranium fuel against future nuclear fuel supplier cutoffs
that might occur -- again, following a future nuclear test. If, as
expected, no IAEA board member or NSG country objects to these Indian
statements, India will construe the silence as assent.

The U.S. State Department is quite aware of these
views. It's a key reason why late last year, State pleaded with the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs not to release the Department's
unclassified answers to whether or not the Executive believed the deal
required the U.S. to cut off nuclear supplies to India if it tests; if
the Department thought India could stockpile U.S. nuclear fuel to
reduce U.S. influence on Indian nuclear testing policies; and precisely
what kind of safeguards India must agree to. Oddly, the Committee
agreed to keep State's answers under wraps. This suggests American
diplomats want India to think it can test with impunity while it is
telling Congress India can't.

This could lead to future misunderstanding and tragedy, says the Journal, which is why it does not want the deal to go ahead just yet.

Deal for uranium, not reactors?

Contrary to what the communists say, the Indo-US civilian nuclear energy agreement is not really about boosting US nuclear reactor sales, reports Wall Street Journal. US companies may not be all that eager to do business with India until it establishes a sufficient amount of Indian nuclear damage
liability coverage, it says. Given India's horrific experience with the
American-built Union Carbine chemical-plant accident at Bhopal, when
this will occur is anybody's guess, it adds.

The Journal then goes on to say:

All of which raises the question, if this "peaceful"
nuclear deal isn't to pump up U.S. reactor sales, just what is it
about? One could argue that India could use more foreign uranium. It's
recently run so low on domestic fuel that it's had to reduce the power
production level of its civilian reactors significantly. It also needs
foreign uranium because its own uranium production has remained
relatively flat, while its civilian and military requirements have
risen.

This is where the trouble begins. It turns out that
fuelling India's civilian reactors with foreign fuel is not all that
peaceful. As K. Subrahmanyam, former head of India's National Security
Advisory board noted, "Given India's uranium ore crunch . . . it is to
India's advantage to categorize as many power reactors as possible as
civilian ones to be refueled by imported uranium and conserve our
native uranium fuel for weapons grade plutonium production."

India, however, doesn't need more weapons to keep up
with Pakistan; it needs more and better ones to match China. That's why
India has been developing intercontinental range ballistic missiles --
weapons that could use more, smaller, lighter, efficient advanced
thermonuclear warheads. This, in turn, is why India's hawks are so
interested in resuming nuclear testing.

The Journal adds:

The U.S. certainly should not finalize the deal until either India agrees it should stop upgrading its arsenal significantly or we clearly decide that we no longer care if it does.

But as India's Hindustan Times reports:

The 123 agreement, unveiled yesterday, is silent on nuclear testing by India but makes it clear that the pact will not hinder or hamper New Delhi's military nuclear programme.

The 40-year agreement, extendable by 10 years, commits the US to ensure uninterrupted fuel supplies to Indian reactors.

"Either party (country) shall have the right to terminate this agreement prior to its expiration on one year's written notice to the other party," says the 22-page text of the pact reached last month.

Going by newspaper reports, this is the best deal India could get.

The Wall Street Journal says the Bush administration is so keen on the agreement that:

The U.S. actually has been twisting arms at the Nuclear Suppliers Group, threatening to
leave and so dissolve the group if countries critical of the India deal
did not fall into line on India.

Indian communists will of course continue opposing any agreement with the US. But the Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party is surely being bloodyminded in opposing the deal, claiming it will undermine the Indian nuclear weapons programme.

The Wall Street Journal says:

In the next few weeks, India is also expected to
submit a safeguards agreement before the IAEA Board of Governors in
Vienna. India will make a unilateral statement aimed at reserving its
right to expel IAEA inspectors from reactor sites if the U.S., or other
fuel suppliers, suspend nuclear fuel shipments for any reason --
including Indian resumption of testing. Indian officials are also
likely to plead for nuclear fuel supply guarantees so the country can
stockpile uranium fuel against future nuclear fuel supplier cutoffs
that might occur -- again, following a future nuclear test. If, as
expected, no IAEA board member or NSG country objects to these Indian
statements, India will construe the silence as assent.

The U.S. State Department is quite aware of these
views. It's a key reason why late last year, State pleaded with the
House Committee on Foreign Affairs not to release the Department's
unclassified answers to whether or not the Executive believed the deal
required the U.S. to cut off nuclear supplies to India if it tests; if
the Department thought India could stockpile U.S. nuclear fuel to
reduce U.S. influence on Indian nuclear testing policies; and precisely
what kind of safeguards India must agree to. Oddly, the Committee
agreed to keep State's answers under wraps. This suggests American
diplomats want India to think it can test with impunity while it is
telling Congress India can't.

This could lead to future misunderstanding and tragedy, says the Journal, which is why it does not want the deal to go ahead just yet.

Hillary and Obama

I loved the Guardian report on the Elton John concert for Hillary Clinton in New York, especially the intro:

Elton John is well qualified in surviving against the odds, and last night he took to the stage and sang his heart out for someone else who refuses to quit: Hillary Clinton.

They may be battling for a lost cause, but that's the thing about us baby boomers: we are hopelessly romantic.

Okay, romantic may not be the right word to use about the Clintons, but how about dogged and true?

Even their critics will concede the Clintons are dogged and true to their own ambitions at least -- and I think, with all her spunk, Hillary is a hell of a lady.

Yes, age is beginning to show on her, she is not as youthful as Obama, she may not have his gift for words, she has even been known to fib at times, but she is passionate and true to her convictions. Yes, she has changed her stand on Nafta and the Iraq war, but that may be because she now sees they are making people suffer. Why should that be seen as opportunism and not concern for the people? If she didn't care for the people, she wouldn't have been fighting for universal health care.

Elton John in his passionate support for Hillary accused Americans of misogyny. He said:

"I'm amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some of the people in this country. And I say to hell with them ... I love you Hillary, I'll be there for you."

I don't think misogyny is the only culprit here.

The fact is Barack Obama is eloquent, charismatic, seen as a visionary, and possesses a shrewd intelligence. He may be just what America needs -- an astute politician whose own interest tallies with national interest. Both he and America gain, for example, by overcoming racial differences. He appeals to both liberals and independents and is now trying to win over the anti-gun control lobby as well. A leader who appeals to such diverse groups is likely to unite the nation.

But the fact is, the Democrats have not seen such a divisive nomination battle for a long time.

Hillary remarkably continues to win in the big states despite being outspent by Obama and bombarded with constant media criticism.

Her appeal was vividly summed up in a Salon headline: Hillary's bridge back to the 20th century. The report said:

With recession looming, Clinton banks on '90s nostalgia, reminding Pennsylvania voters of the good old days of her husband's administration.

"Clinton's version of the '90s is a little airbrushed," Salon added.

But there is no doubt that the American economy was stronger and American influence greater during the Clinton administration.

Hillary is offering neither visions nor illusions in harking back to that era. She is recalling the honest truth.

Technorati Tags: hillary clinton,obama

China violating national sovereignty?

Chinese nationalism goes global and it's treading on other nations' sovereignty. I am not talking of Tibet but Britain, France and America.

This picture from the San Francisco Chronicle shows how heated the confrontation was as San Francisco witnessed a Chinese show of strength. The Chronicle reported:

For all the talk of protests leading up to the Olympic torch relay, we didn't hear much from the supporters of China.

We learned why early on Wednesday morning. They planned to take over the event.

By 10 a.m. at AT&T Park, where the torch run was supposed to begin, it was obvious that the fix was in.

Thousands of supporters were already there, unloaded from dozens of buses parked across from the ball park. (One torch relay insider told me some in the crowd had been bused from as far away as Los Angeles.) During the day Chronicle reporters were told by some supporters that they had been bused into San Francisco from the South Bay, the East Bay and Sacramento by the Chinese Consulate and Chinese American groups.

They were waving thousands of huge, red Chinese flags or holding up identical, professional-looking placards that read "Beijing, 2008, torch relay."

If they are such ardent patriots why are they in America and not in China, I was about to ask but then I realised, ah, they no doubt see themselves as the advance guard. Is there any need to spell out of what?

But why are the Chinese police being allowed to accompany the Olympic torch?

If the Olympic torch relay is really about the Olympic Games, the Chinese police have no business guarding it in foreign cities.

It's not like the Secret Service accompanying the US President. He is protected by Secret Service agents because he is the American leader.

Is the Olympic torch a Chinese possession or part of the Chinese leadership that it has to be protected by the Chinese police?

In fact, the Chinese police are violating national sovereignty by scuffling with protesters in London, Paris, San Francisco.

It is one thing to defend the national embassy, which is recognised as belonging to the nation it represents.

But the Chinese police have been confronting protesters on the streets of London, Paris, San Francisco. Since when did those streets become part of China?

Time reports:

The men in blue-and-white track suits are travelling the world to protect the Olympic torch, but, in the flame's tumultuous tour so far, they have become a symbol of Beijing's heavy-handedness.

The tracksuit-clad Sacred Torch Guard Team was drawn from China's paramilitary People's Armed Police, which is used for internal security. The group formed last August and trained by running six miles daily.

While their chief mission is to protect the flame, they've also cracked down on protesters.

Sebastian Coe, a two-time medalist and chairman of the London Games in 2012, called them "thugs" and said they tried to push him.

A torchbearer in Paris, environmental journalist Yolaine De La Bigne, told the Associated Press that the team snatched away the Tibetan flag headband she was wearing.

AFP reports from New Delhi: India bristles at Chinese security for Olympic flame.

Pulitzer for Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan wins a Pulitzer. He gets a special citation "for his profound impact on popular music and American culture, marked by lyrical compositions of extraordinary poetic power".

Washington Post is the biggest winner with a haul of six Pulitzers, the second-most any newspaper has won in a single year. The New York Times won seven in 2002.

The New York Times reports:

The Post won the prestigious public service award for revealing the neglect of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The Pulitzer citation named two Post reporters, Dana Priest and Anne Hull, and a photographer, Michel du Cille.

Pulitzers also went to The Post’s Jo Becker and Barton Gellman, who won the national reporting award for documenting the power and secrecy wielded by Vice President Dick Cheney, and to Steve Fainaru, who won the international reporting prize for his examination of private security contractors in Iraq.

A Post economics columnist, Steven Pearlstein, won the prize for commentary, Gene Weingarten won the feature writing award for a long article in The Post’s Sunday magazine on a world-famous violinist playing incognito for subway riders, and the paper’s staff won in the breaking news category for its coverage of the mass killing at Virginia Tech.

The New York Times took two awards, including one for Amy Harmon, who won the explanatory journalism for her reporting on the mixed blessings offered by new world of genetic testing.

Hillary speaks up on Tibet, Darfur

Hillary Clinton shows courage in calling on Bush to boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics on August 8 to protest against China's human rights record. It can't be easy for an American presidential contender to take such a stand considering the damage China can do to the US economy. But women are taking the lead in denouncing Beijing. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced she will boycott the opening ceremony and the Democrat Nancy Pelosi has also called for similar action. Their outspoken criticism contrasts with the behaviour of Gordon Brown who has been bending over backwards to woo Chinese investors.

Hillary (photo Guardian) says:

The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for Presidential leadership. These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.

I encourage the Chinese to take advantage of this moment as an opportunity to live up to universal human aspirations of respect for human rights and unity, ideals that the Olympic games have come to represent.

Americans will stand strong in support of freedom of religious and political expression and human rights. Americans will also stand strong and root for the success of American athletes who have worked hard and earned the right to compete in the Olympic Games of 2008.

The Olympics should not be politicised, it's said. But the Games have already been politicised.

Technorati Tags: hillary clinton,china,beijing,olympics

Playwright with a punch

What a man.

Wilson wrote standing up, at a high, cluttered accounting desk. For years, an Everlast punching bag was suspended from the ceiling about two steps behind. When Wilson was in full flow and the dialogue was popping, he'd stop, pivot, throw a barrage of punches, then turn back to work. Pinned on a bulletin board were two quotations, as bold as street signs: Take It to the Moon (Frank Gehry) and Don't Be Afraid. Just Play the Music (Charlie Parker).

That's the Pulitzer-winning black American playwright August Wilson (1945-2007) described by the New Yorker's John Lahr in the Guardian. "Write, stop, pivot, punch" is the arresting headline over a face shot of him looking authorial with his cap and goatee. (Photo: Guardian)

I have never read his plays but he must have been a remarkable man, a self-taught genius. He had never read Chekhov, Ibsen, Arthur Miller, Eugene O'Neill, Tennessee Williams, or so he claimed.

There are shades of Obama:

Wilson's white father abandoned him and his black mother when he was five years old.

But he had a much harder time. Lahr tells an inspirational story:

The African-American community in Pittsburgh embraced him, nurtured him, educated him and contained his rage at his father's abandonment. Wilson learned of a cigar store and pool hall in his neighbourhood called Pat's Place, where community elders congregated. Pat's Place became his Oxford, and its garrulous denizens -- "walking history books", Wilson called them -- his professors.

In April 1964, Wilson walked to downtown Pittsburgh, put $20 on the counter of a pawnshop, and came away with a heavy black Royal Standard typewriter. He had decided to reinvent himself in the heroic mould of the poet. "What I discovered is that writing was the only thing society would allow me to do," he told me. "I couldn't have a job or be a lawyer because I didn't do all the things necessary. What I was allowed to do was write. If they saw me over in the corner scribbling on a piece of paper, they would say, 'That is just a nigger over in the corner scribbling on a piece of paper.' Nobody said, 'Hey, you can't do that.' So I felt free."

This is a story worth saving.

Beijing wild at "vile behaviour"

Only Beijing can come up with English with so colourful as this. Outraged by the London demonstrators disrupting the Olympic torch relay, an official said:

"We strongly condemn this vile behaviour."

Vile? I can't recall when I last heard any official use the word, "vile".

But Beijing has always been colourful in its condemnations.

I recall the old days of Chairman Mao when Radio Beijing used to thunder against "paper tigers" and "running dogs".

Relations with the outside world have clearly improved since then.

The protesters were not berated with animal metaphors but dispatched with an adjective, "vile".

The word immediately reminded me of Shakespeare, though of course it has its modern users too. Randall Terry is quoted as saying: "I believe that Clinton is the most wicked and vile president this nation has ever had." (See here.)

But the most memorable quote involves two of Britain's most famous prime ministers.

Once at a social gathering, Gladstone said to Disraeli, "I predict, Sir, that you will die either by hanging or of some vile disease". Disraeli replied, "That all depends, sir, upon whether I embrace your principles or your mistress." (See here.)

By the way this is how the Chinese Communist Party newspaper China Daily is reporting the demonstrations.

Bloggers beware

Bloggers beware. In web world of 24/7 stress, writers blog till they drop, says the New York Times headline. Death by blogging is the linking headline on Drudge Report. Professional technobloggers are most likely to be the victims of overwork, reports the New York Times, which quotes Michael Arrington of TechCrunch as saying he will have a nervous breakdown one day. Om Malik survived a heart attack in December. My prayers go out to the bloggers at ReadWriteWeb, Digital Inspiration, ProBlogger, Blog Herald and all other great sites. Maybe Lifehacker has already found a workaround to ease the pressure.

Honey Ryder, Pussy Galore, Goldfinger

Ursula Andress as Honey Ryder in Dr No was perhaps the most famous of the early Bond girls. But did Ian Fleming name Honey Ryder after the beautiful blonde Muriel Wright, who was nicknamed Honeytop?

Ben McIntyre, author of a new Fleming biography, does not say so in his article in The Times but says the wealthy aristocrat, who made a lot of money modelling swimsuits on the beach at Monte Carlo, loved Fleming. But Fleming called her "Mu", not "Honeytop".

McIntyre says Fleming named many of his characters after friends and acquaintances, some of whom did not like that, though. The architect Auric Goldfinger threatened to halt publication of the thriller, Goldfinger, when he discovered the villain was named after him. McIntyre writes:

Fleming is said to have disapproved of Goldfinger’s love of concrete and the destruction of Victorian houses to make way for tower blocks, and so used his name for one of his most memorable evil-doers.

The villains Hugo Drax in Goldfinger, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, the evil head of SPECTRE, and Francisco "Pistols" Scaramanga, who appears in The Man with the Golden Gun, were apparently named after Old Etonians who had been in school with Fleming.

But where did Pussy Galore get her name? Remember the Bond girl from Goldfinger played by Honor Blackman?

McIntyre does not go into that, but his article makes enjoyable reading. It even begins like a story:

One morning in February 1952, in a holiday hideaway on the island of Jamaica, a middle-aged British journalist sat down at his desk and set about inventing a fictional secret agent, a character that would go on to become one of the most successful, enduring and lucrative creations in literature. Ian Fleming had never written a novel before. He had tried his hand at banking, stockbroking and working as a newspaper correspondent. Only during the war, as an officer in naval intelligence, had he found a task – dreaming up schemes to bamboozle the enemy – worthy of his vivid imagination. By 1952, he had settled into a job as a writer and manager on The Sunday Times, a role that involved some enjoyable travel, a little work and a lot of golf, women and lunch. Even his best friends would have snorted at the notion that Ian Fleming was destined for immortality.

Oh well, read on the Times article. YouTube has the famous scene from Dr No. It's pretty amusing. The year was 1962.

And don't miss this love story, also from The Times: Sir Paul McCartney on Linda.

Technorati Tags: ian fleming,james bond