END OF THE WORLD

From Mayan to ‘Obama’yan

Yes, we can’t (duh) 

Perhaps it’s already too late to save the world of its various ills; a primer

“State of Fear”. That is the name of a book where the late Michael Crichton talks about eco-terrorists who are attempting to create a ‘state of fear’ to press forward their point-of-view regarding global warming. There have been several prophecies from almost all civilizations pointing toward the end of the world. Be it the Mayan 2012 prediction or the Chinese oracle of the I Ching or the internet bot software program – ‘Web-Bot Project’ (which predicted that a reversion of the earth’s magnetic poles will devastate the world in 2012) – all forecasts have boiled down to a specific date of the end of the global society to peddle their postulation.
Surprisingly, we are not questioning the credibility of these oracles; instead; we are forwarding the premise that perhaps all these oracles who did get it right (their forecasts, that is) for all the wrong reasons (of course, the dates were all kooky) dug up a bigger problem – and that was that all the ‘other’ forecasts which were positively more pertinent and had a better chance of seeing the light – or dark – of the day were also relegated to the standard bin of ‘end of the world’ theories. To contribute our mite to the weight of the bin, is this issue’s section of Scrutiny, in which we pretend to be the first ones to be predicting how and why the end of the world is nearer than you thought and why Obama might end up being able to do nothing about it.
At least geo-politically, what we are seeing around is surely nothing less than steps towards the end of the world – the rising tension in Middle East, strategic moves by Russia, emergence of China and South Asia in making themselves potently loaded with nuclear weapons... Economists who support the growth of nuclear arsenal (yes, they are there!) forward the hypothesis that in the modern era, weak countries are arming themselves not with an intention to attack, but with an objective to dissuade other stronger countries from attacking them. The theorem does hold credibility – when Pakistan attacked India’s borders, India was constrained in its response due to Pakistan’s visible atomic base.
However, those are not democratic and sane governments that rule all countries across the world. Studies have shown, but obviously, that even a limited nuclear war would devastate the world. And the day an autocratic or military ruler decides push has come to shove and the time to decimate the opponent is now, many more than the two of us would wish we were living near the Thames in London.
What the world today requires is a foolproof non-proliferation policy. Comprehending the vibes, Obama has already amended his policy to protect the world from nuclear terrorism. During his April 2009 speech in Prague, he delineated his arms control and non-proliferation agendas and promised a US-led international effort to secure “all vulnerable nuclear materials” within the next four years. That is the most far reaching agenda any US President – for that matter, any premier across the world – has announced in history. To start it up diplomatically, in the recent G8 Summit in Italy, he announced a Nuclear Security Summit in 2010 to combat nuclear smuggling and prevent nuclear terrorism.
Obama knows his priorities too well – the US considers climate emissions control its last priority on the ‘save the world’ list; the December Copenhagen summit will be proof enough. We aren’t complaining about that...

Alpha (decay) male

Alpha males that we all are, none of us believes a nuke attack will ever happen in our lifetimes – so we write this treatise to the alpha female

With around 2000 nuclear weapons on high alert and ready for launch, the nuclear Armageddon is just waiting for its reincarnation. We provide some ‘what if’ details.
There are currently more than 30,000 nuclear weapons of which 8,000 are currently operational. In 1977, the US Department of Defense predicted 265 million casualties from a full-scale US-Soviet nuclear war. United Nations Disarmament Committee states there are more than 16,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons ready for deployment and another 14,000 in storage. With regional tension intensifying, especially among nuclear-rich countries, the probability of nuclear war can’t be denied.
Around 50 nuclear weapons are reportedly deployed against each other by India and Pakistan, targeting their megacities. An incident involving Israel and a neighbour (particularly Syria and Lebanon and to some extent the Palestinian areas) may stimulate the Arab nations to fight. Even the nuclear tensions in Iran and North Korea are increasing. Iran’s nuclear program and North Korea’s nuclear testing spree adds to the complexity. Factoring in nuclear terrorism creates a creepy new dimension with enhanced risk. A nuclear country with a terrorist presence could trigger a nuclear war easily. After the US attempt to push Russia’s neighbours into NATO and the EU, the probability of a US-Russia flash war, though feeble, still can’t be done away with. NATO has stationed around 500 nuclear weapons in Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Turkey. When it comes to the mightiest, the US and Russia keep hundreds of missiles armed with thousands of nuclear warheads on high-alert, 24 hours a day, that reach their targets in less than 30 minutes.
So what if a ‘mild’ nuclear bomb detonates, say in the subcontinent (ten times the power of Little Boy)? In the 30 million subsequent deaths, NRDC (Natural Resources Defence Council) calculated that almost 22.1 million people (in India and Pakistan) would be exposed to lethal radiation doses of 600 rem (units that measure the effects of ionizing radiation on humans) in the first two days after the attack. Add to this, 8 million people would be affected by 100 to 600 rem. In general, besides the local destructions, any nuclear war in any part of the world would result in a ripple effect. A study on the ‘Atmospheric chemistry of regional nuclear war’ suggests that the hot smoke from a burning city would tear holes in the ozone layer. Research by scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder proves that the increased ultraviolet radiation (from the ozone loss) would double the DNA damage along with increasing the cancer rates manifold. This would also reduce crop yields and starve hundreds of millions the world-over.
It is now clear that even a limited and local nuclear war involving less than 100 low-yield weapons, apart from killing a minimum of 20-25 million people, would activate a decade of cold climate titled the ‘nuclear winter’ (report by the American Association for the Advancement of Science). This limited war would also generate 1 to 5 million tonnes of carbonaceous smoke particles, darkening the sky. NASA predicts that 40% of this smoke would stay in the stratosphere for 10 years. The Journal of Geophysical Research concludes through climate model simulations that even a small nuclear conflict would cause mayhem on the atmosphere by “cooling it twice as much as it has heated over the last century.” The journal reports that on an average, global surface cooling of –7°C to –8°C would remain for years – this could well make global temperatures colder than they were 18,000 years ago.
Like we mentioned, it is much easier (and faster) to die from the effects of a nuclear disaster than from those of global warming. Black humour aside, the world in general should gather behind Obama to support his effort to make the world free of nuclear weapons. What would work against him is the fact that the US has extremely less moral authority on this issue. Well, they’ve carried out 1050 plus known nuclear tests till date..

Rahm Emanuel

Obama’s secret weapon!

Countries like Iran and India have strangely not realised the importance of Rahm Emanuel; it is time...

Rahm Emanuel is a name that irritates many more than it intended to in the first place; some say because the man shoots first and doesn’t even ask later. That Obama is using Rahm to straighten numerous issues in America’s foreign policy – be it for Afghanistan or Israel or Arabs – is now well known, but what might not be known is that it was William Daroff (who directs the Washington office of the United Jewish Communities or the UJC) who first called Rahm Emanuel “Obama’s secret weapon.”
For the uninitiated, ‘Rahmbo’ Emanuel began his political career raising money for several Democratic campaigns and later in 1991, became a fund-raiser for Bill Clinton’s Presidential bid. A few years later, in 2006, he was central in devising the Democratic takeover of Congress. Currently, Rahm is Obama’s Chief-of-Staff – a position widely accepted to be the second most powerful in the US government – and although Obama may not like the inference, Emanuel is believed to be the cerebral force and pusher behind Obama’s ‘do-everything-at-once’ strategy. From supporting and promoting Obama’s stimulus package plan, to helping overhaul the healthcare bill and getting it passed, Rahm has worked fanatically for most of Obama’s initiatives, lobbied with numerous research groups, fought for the bailout, the budget bill and much more, not just for the sake of the nation, but as Obama states, for a friend.
Both Obama and Emanuel’s political legacy can be found in Chicago. They have known each other since their early political career. But the truth behind their personal friendship perhaps became starkly clear to the world only after Obama’s official speech, which he gave after inviting Rahm to be the Chief of Staff this year, “I am pleased to announce that my good friend, Congressman Rahm Emanuel, has agreed to serve as my White House Chief of Staff... In just six years in Congress, he has risen to leadership, helping to craft myriad important pieces of legislation and guide them to passage... The son of an Israeli immigrant, Rahm shares a passionate love for this country, and has devoted much of his life to its cause... I appreciate his friendship. And I, and all Americans, should be grateful that Rahm is once again answering his country’s call.” It has been unprecedented for any past President of the United States to publicly accept his personal closeness at such levels to such a high member of the cabinet, and this at the danger of being accused of being nepotistic.
And the biggest advantaged entity we guess is Israel. Rahm is a Jew, has served as a civilian volunteer in the Israeli defense force, and is expected to be the leading think tank behind Obama’s strategy on Israel (Benjamin Emanuel, father of Rahm, said, “Obviously he [Rahm] will influence the President to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.”). Recently, Obama cancelled his planned visit to the UJC/Jewish Federation of North America conference. It would have been Obama’s first major address to a Jewish American group since he became President. No prizes for guessing who’s going in Obama’s place.
It would do well for nations at the wrong end of Obama’s different sticks – for examples Iran, India – to instead try and convince Rahm Emanuel on many conflicting issues. Think about it, how many times has an Indian or Iranian government head invited/talked to/met or even mentioned Emanuel’s policy on India? There, you have the answer!
 

Corporate crime : Recession

Well, arrest me if you can!
Employees are eating away at company’s money, in bad times too!

Indeed. When it comes to corporate crimes, nothing has created more buzz than an Enron or a Madoff scandal. It’s a known fact that many companies, most of the times, typically let go their internal perpetrators scott-free with just a mere warning. Since the company suffers damage in both monetary and non-monetary terms, it's virtually impossible to exactly calculate the loss it had suffered due to corporate crimes. However, in bad times, when the companies are already bleeding with losses, employees' leave no opportunity to further deteriorate the condition. Or rather, leave no opportunity wherein they can exploit the on-going fragile situation and turn them their own personal benefit.
Going by recent PricewaterhouseCoopers' (PwC) biennial survey of economic crime (for the uninitiated, PwC itself was involved in numerous fraud cases, including the Satyam scam) for the past ten years, one-third of the target audience reported that they went through at least one economic crime in the past one year. The survey further revealed, “43 per cent of all corporate victims of crime and 56 per cent of those in financial services reported an increase”. There was a notable addition in the frauds committed by middle managers – a whopping 50 per cent. Around 56 per cent of Canadian companies have been the victims of economic crimes in the last 12 months. Every kind of crime, be it an accounting fraud, a money laundering or bribery, are deep-rooted in the country’s corporate culture. The direct fraud losses in the victimised corporations were greater than $500,000, on an average. Moving from developed countries to developing countries: According to KPMG Malaysia fraud survey, there has been an increase of 33 per cent in the respondents companies experiencing fraud in their organisations. Another survey by Kroll, a risk-consulting firm, shows that 36 per cent of senior corporate executives believe that the general risk of fraud has increased because of the recession.
Thanks to recession and performance-related pay (which is largely practised across the world), most of the middle level executives were not able to achieve their target and thus turned towards criminal path to fulfil their targets.
However, in order to fight recession (and the corporate crimes) and encourage entrepreneurship, many countries are adopting innovative schemes to attract young talent. The UK has nearly 3,000 events designed to inspire and educate aspiring entrepreneurs that eventually helps in creation of mini-enterprises.
Entrepreneurs do act as job creators but it comes with multi-faceted benefits. Not only it helps a young brain to enter the market economy, but also decreases the incidences of corporate crimes in the long run. Of course, countries need to tighten their corporate laws to check the growing corporate crimes and take appropriate actions against the culprits. Along with promoting entrepreneurship, respective governments should also ensure strict laws so that up-coming entrepreneurs do not get scope to make money on the cost of others and decay the corporate culture of the country further!

Corporate : Philanthropy

In the name of charity!!!

Philanthrocapitalism is being used for personal business!

What is the one thing that is common between Tony Blair, Jet Li, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Muhammad Yunus and Sir Richard Branson? In a single word – it is philanthrocapitalism which is bringing a businesslike approach to solve society's problems at global level. Corporate honchos have jumped into this bandwagon to take advantage of this ongoing global spree and straightening their latent purposes. However, a few genuine donors like Gates (who donated $3.8 billion), Jet Li (Jet Li's organisation, One, has already signed up 1 million Chinese to give money), Md Yunus (developed microfinance), Branson (social causes as a profit-making strategy) – to name a few – are taking all the possible initiatives to change the image of corporations and of course helping the society at the same time. A recent survey conducted by the US-based public relations firm, Edelman, discovered that only 38 per cent of people trust enterprises to do what is right and about 17 per cent trust the information they acquire from a company's CEO.
Projects like One Laptop Per Child or Project Shakti, not only helps the poor, but goes a step further and empowers them and promotes community action as well. Besides jobs, health care and housing, the concept of philanthrocapitalism should go further and ensure participation of civil-society on business and not vice versa. But with business and projects getting more complex and diverse, donors also need to strike the right balance. On one hand they ask for enough information to be able to monitor the effectiveness of the organisations they fund, but on the other they do not bog them down in form-filling bureaucracy. True, today most of them are eying on the tax break they receive from their initiatives. Most of them are investing in projects that redirect the money to entrepreneurs in developing countries. Of course, the rise of the philanthrocapitalists does make some people nervous, fearing that these wealthy donors are unaccountable and lack legitimacy. Gates and others certainly need to be transparent and open to challenge. The initiatives have just reduced to marketing gimmicks that enable these entrepreneurs to push their products to even inappropriate demographies.
Philanthrocapitalism is of course shaping the most destituted part of the world and is trying to embrace business opportunity for the upliftment of the society. But then most of the times, the money get channelised to mid-size entrepreneurs in these developing countries (highly perforated with corruption). The big names need to urgently track down the flow of their money and make sure that it reaches the right audience. Otherwise, soon the whole concept of philanthrocapitalism will get written off.

undefined

undefined

undefinedread more...

Abortion (to allow it. . . or not to)

Birth rights of sperms & eggs

The debate on abortion has moved away from the empowerment of women to cutting religious propaganda

Of course, all this is not happening for the first time. Since time immemorial, a woman’s body has been the theoretical and unembellished territory for societal and political war. From the theoretical, scientific and religious end, there are numerous logical stages that define the starting point where ‘human life’ begins. Many schools of thoughts believe that sperms and eggs have life; and put them at par with humans, thus considering them as preconceived life. Many don’t! But almost all blocks ranging from political to religious are in some or the other form discussing the issue of abortion – or as the critics call it, immoral killing of a life.

So what is the debate all about? That’s simple, as that rests on the analysis of the options a woman with unwanted pregnancy has, and those are: one, she can put up the child for adoption; two, she can accept the child; and three, she can abort the unborn child. And that is where the whole debate on abortion starts, with opposing philosophies promoted by two schools of thought: Pro-choice campaigners (who demand a mother be allowed to choose whichever of the three options she might wish to undertake), as opposed by pro-life campaigners (who generally argue in terms of foetal rights rather than reproductive rights). The pro-choice group believes that “a woman should have complete control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy,” and demand that a woman is given ‘the guarantee’ of reproductive rights – access to sexual education, fertility treatments, contraception, to safe and legal abortion, and even legal protection from forced abortion. The pro-life group’s philosophy revolves around the argument that “…human foetuses and embryos are persons, and therefore they have a right to live.” Thus, the movement is characterised by extreme wingers opposing sale and use of contraception, practise of death penalty, euthanasia, cloning, embryonic stem cell research et cetera.

Philosophers and writers have been key in this debate, saddling further complicated arguments. Mary Anne Warren, noted American writer and philosophy professor (cited in major publications like Peter Singer’s ‘The Moral of the Story: An Anthology of Ethics Through Literature’ and Bernard Gert’s ‘Bioethics: A Systematic Approach’) concludes that the foetus “satisfies only one criterion: consciousness (and this, only after it becomes susceptible to pain); the foetus is not a person and abortion is therefore morally permissible.” Using a scientific angle, a former President of the British Academy and current President of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, the well known Anthony J P Kenny believes that since division of the zygote into twins through the process of monozygotic twinning can occur until the 14th day of pregnancy, abortion should not be permissible after two weeks! Again, noted American moral philosopher and metaphysician Judith J Thomson states that even if the foetus has a right to life, abortion is still morally permissible because a woman has a right to control her own body. The concepts of pro-life versus prochoice are in general visible across the world, leading to starkly distanced abortion laws across the world – for example, if in Canada abortion is available ‘on demand’, then in a country like Nicaragua, abortions are illegal.

In history, under Roman law, abortion did occur and was allowed, though only sometimes. Under the common law in England and in the US, abortion was illegal after the movements of the foetus could first be felt by the mother to be. In the 19th century, many western countries began to use statutes to codify abortion.

Under Vladimir Lenin, the Soviet Union legalised all abortions in 1920, but this was fully reversed in 1936 by Stalin in order to increase population growth. Between 1930 to 1960, several countries like Poland, Turkey, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and Mexico legalised abortion in some special cases. This was followed by legalisation of abortion in Japan, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Canada, United States, France, Austria, New Zealand, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium. Since the last few decades, as per reports published by Guttmacher Institute, most of the decline in abortion rates occurred in countries where abortion had long been legal. Contemporarily, the highest rates of abortion have shifted to developing countries, which often have some of the most restrictive abortion laws. In countries like Thailand and Iran, after abortion restrictions were eased around 1997, unsafe abortions have slipped from 15 to 14 per 1,000 women, a big drop when seen demographically, given the fact that around 70,000 women – mostly in developing countries – die each year from unsafe abortions. Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Malta and Vatican City ban the procedure entirely, but in Canada and the US, as we mentioned before, there are no restrictions on the provision of abortion. In the US, almost half of all pregnancies are unintended and thus four in ten of these end in abortions. The Bush administration had placed a ban on federal funding for international family planning programs that provide abortion information to clients. Obama, within a week of being sworn in, lifted the Bush administration’s ban. Obama further passed an executive order officially scrapping the Mexico City Policy (that ‘protected’ – or rather, restricted – taxpayers from involvement in overseas abortions for eight years). Kenya, India, Bangladesh, Spain, Mexico, all are nations where abortion is illegal (sometimes, after a few weeks of conception; like in India) but the governments are not able to control or deliberately overlook the illegal abortions (Mexico has over 900,000 illegal abortions every year). And this point is where religious groups, especially the Catholic communities, are lobbying very hard to stop abortions globally. In general, a majority of Catholic Christians are considered to be pro-life. We repeat, in general! While pro-life believers use scripture references to propagate their views, Roman Catholics in particular recognise that conception is the definitive start of what we know as human life; and therefore, abortion at any stage is immoral.

While Barack is now giving millions of dollars to groups that aggressively promote the pro-choice concept on a worldwide scale, he has been highly condemned by the Vatican along with pro-life leaders on this move. In the Dominican Republic, after the Dominican Catholic Church lobbied, the present laws ban abortion in all circumstances, even in cases of rape; in fact, even when the mother’s life is in danger. Abortion is banned in Catholic heavy Ireland, except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. In Spain, though abortion is illegal, with the passage of gay rights the ban was expected to be removed. However, the Catholic Church has launched strong campaigns to prevent the reform from being passed. It’s clear that the issue of abortion can never escape the bloodying conflict between the political and religious spheres. The politician who attempts to go against the existing religious paradigm could well end up losing a huge base of voters – Obama knew that and still won. But then, is abortion right or wrong?

That, we truly believe, is for a nation and its people to decide. If the democratically elected legislature of a country – which promotes equal women’s rights – believes abortions should be allowed or banned, in whatever form or reason, then be that as it may! Unfortunately, not only is the majority of most global legislative assemblies almost always made up of men, these nations also suffer what we now know as the Roe Effect, which says that pro-choice parents have generally ended up having more abortions and hence fewer children over decades than the pro-life population; thus support for legal abortions has declined over time, and will decline further in the future. That, sadly, might be the way of things to be in the future...

 

 

United States of America: Transition history

A brief history of character!

On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was sworn in as the President of the United States; a commentary...

With tectonic shifts in the US politics power play, the longstanding question of US competence seems to be resurfacing. Let us clarify. That Bush was incompetent is not a Nobel Prize winning theory. But will US be seen again as an intellectually social nation, is the question! Not only Americans, but the whole world is waiting for Democrats to come to true power and refurbish America’s tainted image. Let’s be honest, US, through decades, has built its reputation on genuine achievements that took years of some prim and somewhat improper planning. In contemporary history, it all started from the first nuclear weapon US gave to the world, through what is now known as the Manhattan project. Then came their Marshall plan in 1947 [officially the European Recovery Programme], which focussed on fortifying a stronger foundation for Western Europe, and warding off communism after the second World War. Beside these two war-oriented initiatives, the US also proved its competence in the field of science, technology and arts. This is evident by the number of Nobel Prizes that Americans grabbed – a jaw dropping 309 since 1906 [an average of 3 prizes per year] making it the top contestant in the race. America also developed remarkable institutions of higher learning [Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Yale] giving depth to what ivy league defined. Perchance the most appreciable move was the development of a society that redefined the meaning of melting pot. From the criminally racist days of Cassius Clay, most of US transformed uniquely to welcome all ethnic groups, religions and races. Today, however, the scenario seems different and of course bleak, and the growing acceptance is that nonfeasance is a major risk to America’s global image. The last ten years have been enough to vividly showcase the scars America has received and encouraged. The Iraq war and the much publicised absence of mass destructive weapons was the key. From the American initiative to use private security companies to protect Iraq’s oil infrastructure to the much hyped Iraq reconstruction projects [The Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reported frauds in the initiative and led to conviction of many top officials]; from the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons, where the prisoners were subjected to unspeakable torture [Amnesty International’s 2005 report confirmed the same], to Sergeant Samuel Provance [who reported the sexual abuse of a 16-year-old girl by two interrogators]; from US Attorney Alberto Gonzalez [under his regime, the Justice Department and the FBI have illegally used the US Patriot Act to uncover personal information about US citizens] to Bernard Madoff [arrested oncharges of the biggest accounting fraud in history that led to investors losing $50 billion]; from all this to much more, US hasleft much to answer for its ‘achievements’ in the last eight years, be it the response to Hurricane Katrina, or Saddam Hussein’s structured execution, or America’s conspiratorial and deliberate support to promoting the recession, or the Wall Street melt down, and of course, Bush’s failure to capture Osama bin laden! But perhaps Bush is playing to the past, where previous Presidents have mirrored his lack of commitment to promises.

Woodrow Wilson promised to keep the US out of World War I; and ended up pushing the US into the same war. Then came Herbert Hoover’s 1928 famed pledge to end poverty – he gifted US ‘The Great Depression’. Franklin D. Roosevelt met with aplomb his 1932 pledge to maintain balanced budgets and to keep the US out of World War II. He ‘atom’ bombed Japan and his government’s spending increased from 8.0% of GNP to10.2%. The national debt doubled from 16% to 33.6%. Nixon promised resolutely in 1968 to ‘quickly’ resolve the Vietnam War. If not the war, he at least ended the drought of box office hits in Hollywood where innumerable movies kept on crapping about US heroism in Vietnam.

George H.W. Bush Senior promised in 1988, “Read my lips: No new taxes!” For records, he increased taxes and strangely parted with exclusions for high-income taxpayers. If John F. Kennedy had only Marilyn Monroe for company in history books, Ronald Reagan had Parkinson’s and Star Wars. Yes, William Jefferson Clinton is the most successful President in recent history on almost all parameters– economic [US deficits fell], social [crime rates fell too], global security [Arabs loved him; their wives too]. That he will be known more for Monica than for any of his achievements is the irony of the factor that Americans have lost almost completely, a factor called character.

One man caught on to the remnants of this almost dead factor in the deep emotions of Americans; one man who believed that if hope lived in Harriet Beecher Stowe, then character could live again in Americans; one man who beseeched America to change, radically, dramatically, emphatically to nurture back the character of a nation that once believed in humanity. Till now, he is only known for the colour of his skin. Somewhere in the future, when America redeems the depth in its character, and the character in its promises, this man will be known more for his achievements... “When his children will one day live in a nation, where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character.” That is the dream... That is the dream...

 

 

Historical endorsers

Think Different, Think Dead

Nostalgia sells. And from using living icons as brand ambassadors, Marketers are now stretching back to dip into history. Result: some iconic men & women are being brought back to life!

Can you spot the similarity between Hamburg-based penmaker Mont Blanc and Bollywood flick Lage Raho Munnabhai? Nah... no product placements by the former in the latter; instead, the fact, that both have used Mahatma Gandhi’s imagary – albeit in different ways – to attract eyeballs. Not only did Lage Raho Munnabhai’s promos actively prop up Gandhi’s images in the backdrop, even the storyline incorporated Gandhi and his non-violence credo to successfully ring in the moolah at the box office. This Munnabhai sequel was an instant hit. Similarly, to cosy up with the Indian audience, German pen maker Mont Blanc launched a gold nib plated pen costing a mind-boggling Rs.1.4 million on bapu’s 140th birth anniversary in 2009. The ostentatious effort was to commemorate Gandhi’s historic salt march, but market watchers claim that since Mahatma Gandhi has been also associated with literary achievements, the freedom fighter’s sheen will rub off on Mont Blanc and improve the luxury writing instrument’s standing among India’s discerning target segment. Reportedly, Gandhi’s great-grandson Tushar Gandhi has even endorsed the idea. As a thank you, Tushar’s charitable foundation has already received a donation of $145,000 from Mont Blanc and will receive between $200 and $1,000 for each pen sold. Aditi Agarwal of Ghalla Bhansali Stock Brokers (they’ve recently released a report titled ‘Marketing the Mahatma’), however, takes exception to such marketing moves. “It’s indeed ironical, that Mahatma Gandhi who was considered as an epitome of austerity is being misused by business barons to make money. Marketing and publicity is vital in today’s tough competition, but to what extent? All efforts need to be taken to protect the legacy that Gandhi has left behind,” she argues vehemently.

But, Mont Blanc and Munnabhai are not alone in having made use of Mahatma Gandhi’s name to sell their wares. The list is long. Be it Apple, Telecom Italia, Martin Luther King Jr., Raj Kumar Hirani, or even the American President Barack Obama, all have used Brand Gandhi to break the clutter and reach out to their respective target segments. Leaving aside the hullabaloo of shocked critics and their lengthy petitions to correct the trend, here’s the moot question. What sense does it make to bring back a popular icon from history? Does using the Mahatma as your brand endorsers work better or should marketers settle for current mass icons like Big B, Tendulkar or even couples like Pataudi & Sharmila Tagore?

Some marketers refer to using historical icons as a goodwill gesture (‘paying a tribute’) and if it serves the added purpose of raking in moolah and raising the brand stature, so be it. But the answer to that question could well range from being financially viable (in some cases) to harnessing the product values with the long lasting untarnished image of the endorser. On one thing though, marketers are unanimous viz. the immortal image of these historical ambassadors provides the requisite ‘X factor’ for their brands.

So it’s not only Brand Gandhi who has been used as a brand ambassador by marketers. Che Guevara, Charlie Chaplin or for that matter even Adolf Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussain (recently used in a German AIDS awareness campaign) are also right up there. But, Gandhi has by far been the clear favourite, when it comes to reaching the Indian masses. Remember the ‘Think Different’ campaign launched by Apple in 1997 – with Gandhi in his simple white loincloth and shawl? The image linked an ambassador of immense physical and mental strength to the brand – and helped them break the clutter. Even Italy’s largest telecom company, Telecom Italia used Gandhi in its 2005 campaign and went on to grab the ‘Mezzo Minuto D’oro’ (considered equivalent to the Oscars in the Italian ad-industry) award. Take the case of Luxor, which has consistently used historical figures to illustrate the usage of its highlighters. Their ads showcase usages of Luxor Highlighter by sketching images of Che Guevara, Adolf Hitler and Charlie Chaplin on their ads. Not only have the ads highlighted the historical heros but also the brand, transferring their heroic qualities to the brand. In the process, Luxor also managed to break and rise above the clutter in their segment. Similarly, Rasayana (the anti-stress tea) showed Adolf Hitler smelling a rose with a caption saying, ‘Make peace with the world. Anti-stress tea from Rasayana.’ The slogan simply made the world identify better with the nascent brand. Hitler’s face on the campaign made way for instant recognition among the target audience and made a simple product look smart and maybe, the brand promise even fuelled initial trial purchase.

Thanks to Cherry Shoe Polish, the image of Charlie Chaplin is still afresh in people’s mind. As a matter of fact, the two have become inseparable from each other. It goes without any saying that Charlie Chaplin is loved by everyone alike. His black-and-white persona and humor are evergreen and what better way to describe a black and white shoe polish than an iconic comedian from the black and white era? Charlie rightfully portrayed the idea of ‘enjoy polishing’. Says Alyque Padamsee (who helped create the first series of Cheery ads), “The focus then was on the “perfect gentleman” and the ‘perfect shine’ on his shoes.” The idea of using a black-and-white background has not occurred to Cherry Blossom alone. Apple came out with an ad featuring black and white video footage and print ads featuring legends like Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso. The ad ended with the image of a young girl opening her eyes (as if)to see the possibilities before her. Everyday, the ad featured a different historic figure, with a small Apple logo and the ‘Think Different’ slogan. The idea was to convey that although the world may perceive these (historical icons) as rebels, troublemakers or crazy – Apple sees them as geniuses, because people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do – just what Apple does in its labs. The campaign, completely in line with Apple’s brand positioning, was a hit. The idea of using historical icons as ambassadors is catching on fast in India. State Bank of India, the nation’s largest public sector bank, recently launched a print campaign with pictures of its celebrated account holders in the distant past viz. Dadabhai Naoroji, J.R.D. Tata, J.C. Bose, among others. As per the agency, the idea is to establish SBI’s ‘legacy and reputation’ in the mind of modern consumers. For many, using historical icons as brand ambassadors is the safest bet (besides being economically cheaper), as there are little possibilities of controversies and criticism due to their present deeds. Remember, the quagmire that marketers found themselves in when Salman Khan drove his Land Cruiser over sleeping pavement dwellers in Mumbai or when Sanju Baba landed in jail. Millions of endorsement dollars riding on their backs gave sleepless nights to many. Guess it does pay sometimes to really go ahead and take Apple’s advice: ‘Think Different’!

 
 

Of deaths & clebs

Death-on-sale!?

Branding dead celebrities is a multi-billion dollar business and a slew of smart entrepreneurs are cashing in on the positive feelings associated with the celebrity’s image.

No matter how morbid it sounds, Michael Jackson’s death has given a new lease of life to Hollywood’s ailing economy. As in life, even in death, everyone and anyone remotely associated with Michael Jackson (including his dear dad) is busy using his name to build up their respective bank balance.

Just a couple of hours after Jackson’s death, the music industry relaunched many albums of Jackson and overnight a few of his songs booked top slots of charts. So much so that even eBay, iTunes and Amazon saw a new surge in demand related to Jackson products and merchandise. His father also joined the frenzy. Just three days after his son’s death, Joe Jackson was spotted on CNN’s Red Carpet casually plugging his new record label, Ranch Records. Buzz is that Joe is even lining up Michael’s children for a world tour as The Jackson Three next year. Even rapper Akon is suddenly touting a song with Jackson in his new record;and earlier this month Madonna too paid tribute to the singing sensation at London’s O2 Arena – where Jackson was supposed to perform – of course, to packed audience!

Gloomy as it may seem, marketing the dead is actually a billion dollar industry. A dead product (read: a dead celebrity!) has all the attributes that are required to make a brand. They have a fan following, they are idols, they are memorable, they are likeable, they are valuable and above all, as they are no more present to pamper their fans with their performance, their very names are cash cows for smart entrepreneurs.

Barry Silverstein, a marketing consultant and co-author of the McGraw-Hill book, The BreakawayBrand spoke to 4Ps B&M and gave his take on the trend. “I believe using dead celebrities as part of a marketing program is both a short and long-term strategy. It’s short-term because marketers can capitalise immediately on a dead celebrity who dies, but it’s longterm because, as has been proven with Elvis Presley, a dead celebrity’s aura can live ten, twenty, or fifty years, thus providing a smart marketer with an ongoing path to potential sales and profits,” he says. As per the Forbes’ list, the top 13 dead celebrities generated $242 million in 2007. Firms like CMG Worldwide and the Richman Agency (now a part of Corbis) buy the licence and intellectual property rights of dead celebrities. CMG boasts (even today!) clients like Rosa Parks, Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Jesse Owens and Babe Ruth among its clientele. While the Richman Agency has few from nonglam world, CMG and Corbis receive 20% of the profits from any endorsement. Adds Barry, “Once a celebrity is gone, they will never act, sing, dance, speak, or perform again and that makes every collectible and every image associated with that person truly valuable.”

Take Elvis Presley. He has still not lost his essence and stands firm in this highly competitive world...uh, the world of dead celebrities. According to Forbes Magazine, around 600,000 people visit Presley’s home every year. Elvis has already sold 118 million record albums and around 500 million commemorative Elvis US postage stamps were sold after 16 years of his death. But with Michael Jackson’s sad and untimely death, Presley’s top slot seems to have found a close competitor. Marketers are even planning to commercialise Michael Jackson’s estate in the lines of Elvis’ estate. The media also crashes in on the party. You simply have to look around at all the ratings-boosting coverage of MJ’s death for current evidence. TIME magazine has been particularly quick on the uptake. While the figures for their recent special commemorative issue on Jackson are still not available, a similar special issue on Princess Diana’s death by TIME sold more than 1.1 million copies. Natmags is releasing a commemorative 132-page Michael Jackson tribute magazine and a total of 200,000 copies of the glossy A4 title will be on sale for a month, priced at £2.99 per copy. Memorial events too are going strong, where fans are ready to pay $50 to vendors for a picture next to a cut out of the King of Pop. Jackson’s funeral, in fact, has been the biggest in entertainment history, even bigger than Diana’s death and at par with the event of Obama’s presidential speech. Jackson’s cremation event was viewed by more than 750 million people. Going by Nielsen data, Princess Diana’s funeral saw 33.25 million viewers, while former President Ronald Reagan’s mid-day funeral drew 0.8 million people only. Not to be outdone, even merchandise licensees from around the world have successfully tuned into manufacturing and distributing products using celebs who have passed away. In 2008, Elvis Presley Enterprises was sold by Elvis’ daughter, Lisa Marie, for $100 million. It should not come as a surprise therefore if tomorrow it is Michaels’ images and stamps. In the past, Diana dolls had become icons of the Princess after her death. They can still be bought for $188.95 from the Society for the Preservation of History. Franklin Mint’s porcelain portrait plate sells for $29.95 and Solid Silver Memorial Coin for $55.

If we are talking of legendary celebs, we can’t miss out on Marilyn Monroe. More than 40 years after her death, licensing her famous poses and pout have made more than $30 million in fees for Anna Strasberg, the wife of Ms. Monroe’s former acting coach, and her business partner, a professional peddler of dead peoples’ images. Marilyn Monroe’s images alone have pulled in more than $30 million since her death and $8 million in 2007 alone. In 2004, Robert Sillerman (a wealthy American businessman who deals in building and selling media companies) paid Lisa Marie Presley $100 million for an 85% stake in Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc.

And not to miss out on the Monroe frenzy to entice potential consumers, Mercedes-Benz still features Monroe (along with James Dean) in some of their ad campaigns. An auction event organised by Julien’s auctions (of Darren Julien), sold a Jackson album ‘Goin’ Back to Indiana’ for $33,750. The auction also featured other collections of Michael Jackson, Marilyn Monroe and Elvis Presley. Social networking sites have also not let-go this opportunity and have done everything possible to give their users real-time updates. Twitter and Facebook are alleged to be the first ones to break the news of Jackson’s death. Twitter saw up to 5,000 Jackson-related messages being posted per minute and eventually his death emerged as the most discussed subject on the portal. Facebook saw a similar response; with the number of postings tripling during the hour after the news of Jackson’s death broke. Talking on these marketing techniques, Barry states, “Some companies license rights to use a dead celebrity’s image, movie clips, or music and incorporate those things into TV ads or promotional materials. Others just pay homage to the dead celebrity to gain a marketing association with the individual.”

Even IT giants are getting enamoured by the potential of this mammoth business. Corbis, the digital image company set up by Bill Gates, has bought a Beverly Hills company, which owns the image rights to more than 50 deceased celebrities. Corbis takes a 20% cut of the profits from any endorsement, double the usual rate for a living celebrity endorsement. Even celebrity Promotion Companies like CKX rely heavily on dead celebs for their bottom-line. They purchase the intellectual property rights and thus churn out huge money. And if you thought that only the big brands and consultants can take advantage of legends that have passed away, you could not be more wrong. Just walk the streets of New York, London or Rio De Janeiro and you’ll see markets flooded with Che Guevara, Marilyn Monroe and now even Jackson merchandise, ranging from T-shirts, handkerchiefs and coffee mugs to sundry decorative brick bracks. True, dead celebs make for hot brands, hotter than even the living ones! May their souls Rest In Peace!

 

Tinsel Town : Water

The dry-cleaning of 70 mm

The blatant waste of water for shooting purpose in tinsel town

When it comes to controversy regarding water in Bollywood, the movie 'Water' would feature prominently in the list. But then the same word when used in movie (not as movie title!) never raises any eyebrows. The way water is wasted for shooting purposes in tinsel town is really uneconomical. The usage of water in any movie's shooting can’t be brought down to nil, but then sheer and blatant wastage of water should also not be ignored.

The usage of water has always been there in movies for almost all types of scenes be it for climax, romance, tragedy or disaster. From creating artificial rains to natural ambience, water is used (read: abused) for almost all purposes in the tinsel town. As per recent newspaper reports, a leading forthcoming movie used around 200 water tankers to shoot a city flood scene, while another movie "Tum Mile", used 200 tankers of water for a shooting sequence. Likewise "De Dana Dan", used 700 tankers of water for shooting the climax. It is estimated that 28 tankers of water, on an average, are needed for a single rain sequence, i.e., to create artificial rain. Worse, the water that is used for shooting purposes is not any normal tap water but highly purified. But the real waste can only be comprehended after diving into the details. Well, as they say, the devil is in the details — each tanker of water holds nearly 12,000 litres of water! Which boils down to the fact that on an average 3,36,000 litres are required for creating artificial rainfall for a song sequence. And this is just for one shot, and remember it takes numerous similar shots (and numerous days) to zero in any sequence!

Contrast this with the usage of water in Hollywood movies. Agreed, that even Hollywood movies do use element of water to lure the viewers and make their movie visually more pleasing. But then even movies like "Titanic" and "Pirates of the Caribbean" used less water and more special effects to create the desired effects and visuals.

The whole issue of using and wasting good quality, purified and drinkable water gets grimmer after analysing the situation of water in Mumbai and whole of India. As per UN reports, by 2050, per capita water availability in India is expected to drop by about 44 per cent, all thanks to growing populations, higher demand and a depleting water table. The Mumbai water authorities have reduced their water supplies by 30 per cent as the state faces huge problems of water shortage. As per official statements, the water in Mumbai presently is 60 per cent of the total annual storage of around 13 lakh million litres that is required. And this situation is just not confined to Mumbai but can be seen and felt across the nation in almost every household.

Any kind of shooting (be it for movies, soaps or commercials) should make sure that they at least decrease the usage of water. More emphasis should be given to sharing of resources and opting for natural ambience. It is advisable that instead of using purified water, more efforts should be given to conservation, recycling and re-usage of water, rather than wasting this precious resource blindly. This will not dilute the essence of cinematography but will actually help them in washing away the water related problems of Mumbaikars and India.

Putin: Mismanaged Russian Media

A circus clown called Pravda!

Putin’s mouthpiece is a flabbergasting piece of shambles 

Oh, what all it could have achieved; and look at where it has ended. To say that the Russian government’s official mouthpiece (former, they claim), Pravda, has descended into becoming a ludicrous two crap piece of dimwit news creation, is to state only the tip of the Kremlin iceberg. There has been a lot of talk about Vladimir Lenin’s legacy. It requires no reiteration to praise his role in the development and progress of the Soviet Union. When it came to the Pravda of old, he left no stone unturned to take it to new heights and to make sure that it echoed the voice of the nation. Pravda used to follow Lenin’s editorial stance regularly and voiced what came to be known as Leninism. It was actually after the October Revolution of 1917 that Pravda started selling nearly 100,000 copies daily. Pravda expectably became an official publication of the Soviet Communist Party and a channel for announcing official policy. Decades – and many Soviet premiers – later, it fills one with sadness to see the pathetic state that Pravda has been left in. Sample a few of its breaking news.

On September 24, 2009, Pravda published news (and last month uploaded explicit videos too!) that featured a Russian based US diplomat Kyle Hatcher cavorting pleasurably with prostitutes. US Ambassador to Russia, John Beyrle, defended and clarified that the tape was “clearly fabricated.” As per Beyrle, “the video spliced genuine footage of diplomat Kyle Hatcher in a Moscow hotel room with staged footage of a couple having sex.” The attempt to frame Kyle seemed so ludicrous it could well have been managed by a high school kid. But then, this kind of zany tragicomic news is no stranger to Pravda. Take this multi-part series they had on the topic of sex in 2007. On April 18, 2007, Pravda presented their own version of a juiced up adultery survey on various countries. Fair enough. But six day later, the paper published news on sex museums, following the same within a week with a detailed report on how “future technologies may destroy sex as the ultimate pleasure for humans.” On May 7, 2007, the editorial team came out with a deeply thought review of breasts – about how various media outlets portray breasts differently.

One year earlier, in January, 2006, Pravda had headlined an article on Condoleezza Rice as follows: “The US Secretary of State released a coarse anti-Russian statement. This is because she is a single woman who has no children.” Their brilliant analysis commented, “[Rice] loses her reason because of her late single status. Nature takes it all... Such women are very rough. They are all workaholics, public workaholics. They can be happy only when they are talked and written about everywhere.” That sounds nothing compared to what they did in July 2008. In an article titled, “George and Laura Bush to divorce after election because of Condi Rice?” Pravda confirmed that “George W. Bush has been having an affair with US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. A former employee of the presidential administration told The National Examiner [sic!] that Laura Bush once spent her night in a hotel to stay away from the White House… Laura Bush will reportedly be paid $20 million in case she divorces her husband…” Another article was titled, “Condoleezza Rice’s sexual worries...”

It’s sad that Putin has chosen to ignore the ridiculous bunch of editors’ mob running the scallywag show in Pravda. Or perhaps he hasn’t. Whichever way it is, Pravda presents a huge opportunity for Putin to develop his international image in an intellectual manner. His recent dalliances with Russian Patriarch Kirill seem to be paying off double time with Kirill visiting many anti-Putin countries and regions in a successful attempt to change perceptions about Russia. Putin may not realise this, that despite the editors, Pravda has a huge international brand value. And yes, some of the current news reports seem to have obtained a saner tint. Even the website has become pretty upbeat. But unless Putin leverages Pravda to run international commentaries from the Krugmans and Friedmans of the world, the media vehicle’s potent strength would never be realised... Last we checked, Pravda was running Cindy Crawford’s bikini clad photographs as the opening views on its home page.

W o r l d : G e o - s t r at e g i c L o c at i o n

Roach’s good face!

Why you have no idea what’s going on in the Arctic and the Antarctic!

When it comes to environment and environmental concerns, nothing can beat the global warming issue. Global warming already contributes to anything above 150,000 deaths and five million illnesses annually, as per research reports by the World Health Organisation and the University of Wisconsin. But then, as they say, there’s a good face to every roach that lived. Since civilisation, the Arctic and the Antarctic were the only two regions that did not experience any kind of colonisation. How much longer, you ask? We say, a question too late. A few countries are all set to turn the tables in their favour and commercially exploit this melting issue. With global warming intensifying, new resources and new avenues of commercialisation are gradually getting exposed. So what, you ask again – well, weren’t countries already studying penguins in these caps? Wake up Rip, you really have no idea what’s going on!
The North Pole first. The Arctic icecap is rapidly melting, thus opening up access to massive natural resources and creating shipping shortcuts that could save billions of dollar. It is estimated that over 50% of the ice cover in the Arctic region has disappeared since the last 2-3 years, resulting in the opening up of new sea routes. Countries like Russia, Canada, Denmark and Norway are leaving no opportunity to claim their control over this area. Since August 2007, strategic bomber patrol flights (predominantly Russian) are a regular affair over the region. Not for anything else, but to keep an eye over the activities of other countries over this region. In the same year, in 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper also showed his interest in sending naval patrol vessels to Arctic and setting up a training centre along the Northwest Passage. He further announced the building of a deep-sea port (at Nanisivik) and a military base (at Resolute Bay). The very next year, in 2008, Canada conducted its largest military exercise ever. A few months back, in July 2009, Denmark’s MPs approved plans to set up an Arctic military command and task force. Likewise, Norway is also considering exploration for oil and natural gas in its Arctic volcanic island of Jan Mayen.

If Russia thought it had had a head start, today, the region is covered by strategic bomber flights of Canada, Norway and Denmark too – of course, with the Russian navy patrolling the waters. This unconventional growing interest of various countries over ‘dead’ region can be explained through researches conducted by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and the Norwegian company StatoilHydro that predicts that the Arctic hides 25% of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas deposits.
The studies further reveal that the region may contain nine billion barrels of oil and 86 trillion cubic feet of gas. Extending this research, British Petroleum, Europe’s second-largest oil company, estimates the region to hold nothing less than 200 billion barrels of oil or up to 50% of the world’s undiscovered hydrocarbons. In September 2006, Gazprom completed drilling in a few areas of Shtokman field (estimated to have 3.8 trillion cubic meters of natural gas and more than 37 million tonnes of gas) and expects the gas production facility to be operative by 2015.
Add to it the newly discovered sea routes, which are saving huge amounts for shipping companies. Warming can take a walk, many companies use icebreaker ships to cut the ice, their cost and transit time. A fast-dedicated sea-lane is being planned between the Arctic port of Murmansk (in Russia) and the Hudson Bay port of Churchill (in Canada). Arctic routes are unbelievably giving substantial competition to Panama and Suez Canals; and their biggest selling point is that as of now – unlike the Suez or Panama – there are no fees for Arctic routes, unless of course polar bears attempt to fleece you. Talking business, even South Asia’s giant, China, is gearing up to exploit this business model. China has one large “research” icebreaker, the Snow Lion (Xuelong), which is being used in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Since China’s economy is highly dominated by exports and international trade, such low cost shipping route would add to its profit. Beluga Shipping, on September 12, 2009, became the first shipping company to travel through the Northeast Passage without an icebreaker ship as an escort. A few weeks later, even German merchant ships MV Beluga Fraternity and MV Beluga Foresight from Ulsan, South Korea arrived through the passage at Yamburg, Siberia.

Some newspapers report that while the “journey from South Korea to the Netherlands, for example, is about 12,658 miles, by using the Northeast Passage, approximately 3,452 miles (and 10 days) can be shaved off, thus saving about $300,000 per vessel.” Studies show that by avoiding the Suez Canal, the trip from Asia to Europe is shortened by almost 5,000 km. Even South Korean and Singaporean shipyards are busy building massive new icebreakers; and Japan is strategically lining up its shipping industry to exploit the routes.

If North Pole is the mistress, the South Pole is the pole dancer. Like Arctic, various studies suggest that the thick ice cover over the Antarctic continent is home to the world’s largest reservoir for fresh water – holding 30 million cubic kilometres of ice, which is equivalent to 75% of earth’s fresh water. Seismic tests suggest there could be about 60 billion barrels of oil under the hidden ocean floor. It all started in the year 1959. In order to protect Antarctica’s ecology and to prevent military activities, mineral mining, unofficial scientific research and other ecologically harmful practices/initiatives, twelve countries signed the infamous Antarctic Treaty. But then, like almost all other global treaties, this treaty was also not able to contain the greed of the already greedy world.
By the end of the 20th century (late 1990s), many countries had consolidated their control over parts of Antarctica. Argentina had a control over various areas since long. By 1994, permanent occupation was also observed. Earlier, in 1982, the Brazilian government had launched its first Antarctic expedition – and in about a year had successfully built their first base (Comandante Ferraz). Furthering this neo-colonisation procedure, in 1991, Brazilian President Fernando Collor de Mello became the first president to spend three days in the occupied area – and all this to again fortify their claim. This was followed by a visit of 13 Brazilian parliamentarians to the base (in January 2008 and then in January 2009). Another Latin American country’s claim on Antarctica is a matter of hilarity and dispute in global forums.

Chile’s officials claim that Antártica Chilena, a ‘province’ on the continent, historically belongs to the country and is as old as Chile itself. To further its claims, Chile maintains a permanent civilian population (130 plus), a small school and even a bank on the province. But the oldest coloniser among them all, predictably, is the United Kingdom. The country had a continuous presence in the South Atlantic region since 1833 (the area is today called the British Antarctic Territory or BAT). The UK went as far as undertaking a secret wartime military operation (the infamous and ignored Operation Tabarin in 1943 – during WWII) in that territory. BAS, or the British Antarctic Survey, is currently administrating the research and control in the area. Hilariously, last year, to commemorate the centenary occupation of British rule, the BAT issued its first legal tender coin. Not to forget the US, which of course has NASA’s bases in the continent (NASA believes that Antarctica’s surface ‘is quite similar to that of one of the moons of Jupiter’. Right, we get it now!).
The geopolitics game begins with New Zealand and Australia recognising the BAT and UK returning the favour by recognising the Australian claim on the continent. But then these two ‘friendly’ neighbours do not recognise the Argentine or Chilean territories; the compliment is paid back vice versa. Seven countries (France, Argentina, Australia, Chile, Brazil, New Zealand and Norway) have made eight territorial claims (two by Norway and one each by others). And the interesting fact is that these claims have been recognised only between these seven countries. Why are all these manipulations critically dangerous for the world? That’s because it won’t be long before a nuclear armed nation with a cannonball leader stakes its claim to a valuable portion of Arctic or Antarctic, and announces it will go to war with any country that disputes the claim or tries to evict them from the area. We’re betting 60 billion barrels of oil that that time will be pretty soon!