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..

Rio de Janeiro: Olympic Bid

Olympian samba in ‘Lula’land

Brazil is on track to host the 2016 Olympics, but it must also focus on developing more world class athletes

“Yes we créu!”, may sound like a cliché – especially to all those North Americans who have been pre-occupied with the razzmatazz of “Yes, we can”. But this was one occasion they couldn’t; make Chicago win the bid to host the 2016 Olympics, that is. And this happened despite Barack Obama himself staking his reputation behind Chicago’s bid. 

Anyways, the more interesting development has been w.r.t. to the winner – Rio de Janeiro, a city famous for sun and sin, which got chosen ahead of Chicago and Tokyo. Even more shocking was Madrid’s lost of 32-66 in a direct contest between the two in the final round of voting. It’s for the first time that any Latin American country will be hosting Olympic games. The IOC’s choice of Rio de Janeiro makes the emergence
of this “backyard of the United States” quite evident.

What came as an added advantage for Rio was the ongoing preparation for 2014 FIFA World Cup in the country. Brazil has always been over-enthusiastic about football. And this has acted as amajor shot in the arm for its bid for the Olympic games. Since most of Brazil’s infrastructure and games venues are under a major overhaul for the FIFA World Cup, the city seems pseudo-ready for Olympics.

But it seems that this “backyard of the United States” was also preparing itself quite well “behind the veil.” To win the 2016 games for Rio de Janeiro, Brazil spent almost $50 million. Rio will spend an estimated $11.1 billion to build the facilities and infrastructure for the Olympic venues. So much so that Brazilian president Lula da Silva spent two days in Copenhagen and also wrote personal letters to the 106 voting members. He had each letter hand-delivered by an ambassador. Obama’s effort was quite measured in comparison, as he made a special appearance at the last moment. Along with Lula, soccer legend Pele and Olympic champion swimmer Cesar Cielo were also there to urge IOC members. Lula da Silva said in his appeal to IOC delegates, “It’s not possible that it be in England in 2012 and in another European country in 2016 ... It’s not fair that Brazil, one of the 10 biggest economies in the world for 30 years; that Brazil, one of the world’s industrialized countries, a nation that has demonstrated its love for sports; it’s not fair that Brazil not be chosen.”

Europe has already hosted 30 Olympic games, while Asia has five. Oceania has hosted two and North America has bagged 12, including eight in the US alone. Rio also hosted the Pan American Games in 2007, which has led to a lot of positive change in the city. Even the local public support was higher for Rio as per the IOC poll. Around 67% locally supported Chicago, 56% locally supported the Tokyo and 85% locally supported the Games in Rio and Madrid.

Lula knows that along with a huge games infrastructure, Rio needs a complete re-fabrication of its transportation system. To ease the chaotic traffic of the city, Rio is planning to make roadways through granite mountains (from Ipanema to Barra da Tijuca). Rio also plans to upgrade its bus rapid transit or BRT systems. With the poverty graph moving southwards and offshore oil deals paying off the county well, things are indeed looking up for the company. Out of the total planned investment of $14.4 billion, around $11.5 billion will be spent on building/upgrading infrastructure. As per Brazil’s sports ministry, the games are expected to rake in 120,000 jobs each year across Brazil until 2016 and an additional 130,000 jobs per year for the following 10 years. 

 The biggest predicament for this nation now is preparing its athletes, especially in the country that is known as Holy Grail of football, but not so much for other sports. China spend millions on development of its athletes, while UK is doing the same for the London Olympics in 2012. Just like China, Brazil will want to showcase its growing might to the world in every possible way through these Olympic games. And an inspired performance by its own athletes may just be the icing on the cake it needs.

Around the world: mental (in)competence

Are you nuts?

They were great men, running great countries... oh, they were all nuts

Psychos, freaks, insane...! We were amazed when we found out that there have been political leaders in this world who have qualified on all three of the above accounts – no, we’re not referring to our dearest Members of Parliament. It’s more astounding when we realised after our (brilliant?) secondary research that  some of these mentally unstable politicians actually ended up becoming the heads of countries!

Going by the example, the case of Richard Nixon comes first. Nixon was President of the United States from 1969 to 1974 and the first one in US history to resign from office (facing sure impeachment). The book, Richard Nixon: The Shaping of His Character, by Fawn M. Brodie – famous biographer and history teacher at the University of California – became the totem pole for understanding who the real Nixon was. Shockingly, the book reveals that Nixon was actually a sufferer of paranoia. For information, paranoia is most often linked with psychotic illnesses like schizophrenia – experts comment that in some cases (not necessarily in Nixon’s), the person believes he is on a special mission and has been chosen by God. To that effect, some of Nixon’s controversial policies do bear evidence of a traumatic childhood he had gone through.

A study done by a group of psychiatrists at the Duke University Medical Centre astoundingly reveals that 49% of former US presidents were afflicted by mental illnesses. The study published in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease further reveals that 18 out of the 37 presidents researched, were found to have suffered a mental illness of some form or the other. Ulysses S. Grant (general-in-chief of the Union Army during the Civil War and the then President of US) was also among them. The medical case of depression was the most prevalent disorder among presidents, occurring at a rate of 24 percent – ‘At least 10 presidents were affected by episodes while in office, and the study found evidence that symptoms interfered with their performance in almost all cases.’ Abraham Lincoln was one of the most famous of the sufferer lot – his seven losses (at various levels) before he finally became President big reasons for the same. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly, George W. Bush is the most recent documented case of a president suffering from high levels of depression.

On the other hand, although Garry Will, author, journalist, historian specialising in policy and politics states in his book, Kennedy Imprisonment: Meditation on Power, how John F Kennedy’s “insatiable machismo” had dangerous foreign policy implications for his country as well as for the world, one cannot directly infer that Kennedy was suffering from any mental illness – the concept of ‘sexual addiction’ has still not been accepted notably as a disease of the mind.

In a book called Ronald Reagan: the politics of symbolism, the famous American historian specialising on biographies of American presidents, Robert Balleck, says that Reagan’s bitter experience in early childhood, due to his alcoholic father, had severe implication in his later life. As Balleck writes, “The episode(s) must have reinforced Reagan’s horror of being in a helpless condition, beholden to someone else for survival... Reagan lived in fear of his father’s uncontrolled behaviour and understandably places an exaggerated premium on self-mastery in his own life and in the life of the nation.” Although Reagan left office in 1989, in the year 1994, he announced to the public that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, an affliction that kills brain cells. Then CBS White House correspondent Lesley Stahl has commented that during an interview when Reagan was in office, “a vacant Reagan barely seemed to realize anyone else was in the room,” and that “I had come that close to reporting that Reagan was senile.” Reagan’s doctors refute this presumption that Reagan had developed the affliction in office.

If the US has its hands full, the world has its hands fuller. In a medical disclosure of the current President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari was declared mentally ill by doctors appointed by him personally during the time he was behind bars. Doctors reveal how he was suffering from psychological problems like dementia, depression or post traumatic mental disorder. It is also documented how Zardari attempted to commit suicide in the between of the jail terms. On a similar platform was the killing Ugandan President, Idi Amin, who was accused of suffering from the “general paralysis of the insane” (demantia paralytica; a neuro-psychotic disorder). But the diagnosis could never be substantiated.

Next in the line is Kjell Magne Bondevik, former Norwegian Prime Minister (from 1997 to 2000 and again from 2001 to 2005). He stakes his claim to the fact that he was and still remains the first head of any nation state to publicly announce that he is mentally ill. Wonder of wonders, he did not resign but took sick leave. And currently he remains the President of the Oslo Centre for Peace and Human Rights in Norway.

Winston Churchill was noted to be a manic as he suffered from manic depression. In 2006, a British mental health charity even commissioned a statue of Churchill, and defended the same despite a public outcry – the charity later clarified that it was trying to project a more positive image of people with mental illness (which speak volumes about its initial claim). In his book Black Dog, Kafka’s Mice, and Other Phenomena of the Human Mind, psychiatrist and historian Anthony Storr wrote: “Had he [Churchill] been a stable and equable man, he could never have inspired the nation....”

Premiers and heads of states have been ridiculed, mocked at and made a joke of since almost time immemorial. And more often than not, many of these premiers have given those slights of hand a pass rather than a challenge – unless of course in non-democratic nations, when civilians have been jailed or even executed for mocking the head of a nation. But can one ever imagine living in a world where your own leaders are certified maniacs? There you go again about our MPs...    

G8 summit: Swiss alps, Disneyland tour also options...

Next G8: Star Cruise

The summit will also include paragliding, water sports, bungee lessons

With passing time, experts now concur that French premier, and (hyper)active G8 member Nicholas Sarkozy has started looking – and behaving – eerily similar to Sylvester Stallone [Go ahead, give it a try; identify sweet Nick in the photograph]. Funnily, this behavioural similarity extends to the whole G8 belt [US, Japan, Germany, France, UK, Canada, Italy, Russia and Ethiopia... er, alright, if you caught us on this, read on, you seem to be interested], with almost every member contributing his Shylockian best to behaving like a spoilt celebrity during every summit, finally achieving nothing. So we did what we do best [no no, not that; Bush does that better] – we analysed the progress report of the past few summits to decipher what exactly has been achieved in terms of contribution to least developed nations!

G8 summit in Birmingham, England, 1998: Protesters for the first time were formally allowed to give a written letter, which requested G8 to work on the heavy debt burden of the third world. Letter accepted, case dismissed! Nothing much was discussed, leave of course the letter.

Cologne, Germany, 1999: To prove that they were worried about poverty, an ‘officially’ undisclosed amount was sanctioned. According to World Bank, the ‘sanction’ was so small that it wasn’t enough to even provide five bread loaves per person per year per poor country.

Okinawa, Japan, 2000: Aid amount invested in projects: Close to nil; evidently because of billions spent on militarisation of north-east Asia.

Genoa, Italy, 2001: Progress on debt cancellation: Nil! Massive protests took the blame, rather than the G8 members.

Kananaskis, Canada, 2002: Among many important issues, NEPAD [New Partnership for Africa’s Development] was also on agenda. $64 billion was requested, but only $6 billion was sanctioned. The reason? Russia requested – and was presumably given – $20 billion for the upkeep of the Russian nuclear stockpiles.

Evian, France, 2003: “Iraq has WMDs! And everybody better contribute to kill that damn nuke-bomber Saddam!” We told you, Bush churns out gas better!

Georgia, USA, 2004: Main agenda: Extending the controversial Heavily In-debt Poor Countries [HIPC] initiative for debt-relief and to vaccines development. Achieved: Magnanimous relief to Iraq’s $120 billion debt on US insistence.

Gleneagles, Scotland, 2005: This summit, like all years before, was again aimed to provide $50 billion debt-relief to Africa [Nothing new! Nothing achieved!].

Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2006: For the first time in recent history, the G8 leaders proactively agreed on energy security, fighting diseases and encouraging education. Oh yes, it didn’t at all mention them providing any financial assistance!

Heiligendamm, Germany, 2007: Top agenda: Africa! Promises made in 2005 [in Scotland] of $50 billion aid to Africa: More or less overlooked!

Creditably, developed nations in all have donated around $2.5 trillion since 1960 to LDCs. However, official estimates confirm that even this falls short of the required – and so called ‘promised’ – aid amount by a mammoth $3.5 trillion. As per the World Bank, it will cost developed countries just 2.8 cents per person per week to meet the promise. But we believe the first world still hasn’t understood the cheapness of life’s existence for the poor.

Having said that, we have a strategy for poor beleaguered Nick. We suggest that instead of being uselessly exposed to global criticism year after year, the G8 should officially confirm that leaders would meet simply to have a good time. After that, hand over the event management to our team [please, we insist]! Disneyland, Star Cruise, bungee lessons, paragliding, you name it guys, we’ll have that for you. And what about least developed countries? Goddamn those Africans...

Israel-Russia war of words: spawns generations...literally

A piece on Israeli grandmothers!

And on why mothers and grandmothers of this great nation play a critical role in the Israeli-Russia spar

Since August 28, 2008, almost all western media in some or the other form, are criticising Russia’s decision of recognising the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia [once considered part of Georgian influence] by considering it Russian-occupied territories. Not only have both Fortune and Economist featured Russia’s growing influence on their cover stories in the last few weeks, even global leaders have suddenly started recognising that Russia still exists. In sarcastic criticism, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expectably showed her support to Georgia and warned Russia, “In contrast to Georgia’s position, Russia’s international standing is worse now than at any time since 1991...” How interesting dear Ms.Rice that you use that year as an example, for we believe that for the first time since 1991, Russia is finally regaining its rightful position on the world platform. And please Ms.Rice, neither you nor your favourite ‘Kiss Army’, of whom you are a self-confessed die-hard fan, are even an iota interested in what happens in Georgia, are you ma’am?

But what we wish to impetuously implicate out here, and what has been missed out by a majority of media in the process has been the emergence of a strange spar between Israel and Russia over the Georgian war! Analysts and experts in both Israel and Russia are bombarding each other with anti-Russian and anti-Israel statements respectively. Even in the media, while on one hand, Israeli press is accusing Russia of increasing its arm trade with the Middle East, on the other hand, the Russian media is leaving no stone unturned to prove the presence of arms and Israeli training hubs in Georgian land. And now, gravely serious political leaders allege that Russia’s nuclear fuel supply to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant  is an initiative against Israel and Georgia. The question is, why is Israel suddenly getting into the benign act of protecting Georgia?

Is it religious proximity? That doesn’t seem to be the case as Georgia is a certified orthodox Christian state compared to the predominantly Jewish Israel. While one can easily trace deep relations between Israel and Georgia – be their arms trade or the presence of Georgian Jews in Israel – what slips under the carpet magnanimously is the fact that important political leaders of Israel and Georgia are actually blood relatives. For information, the chairman of the Georgian parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee Lasha Zhvania has an Israeli Jewish mother. God rest her soul, the grandmother of scam-fam Israeli Ariel Sharon is buried in Georgia. The ubiquitously sweet Georgian defence minister Davit Kezerashvili, holds the citizenship of, god rest our souls, Israel!!!

Strangely, despite its Pravda-driven spiel [Pravda skims close to being certified a lunatic bandwagon, with the past month’s chief story, for example, being Condoleezza Rice’s Sexual Worries], the Russian political powerhouse actually is still a big supporter of Israel. It’s not just about the recent acceptance of a visa free regime between Israel and Russia, even Russia’s nuclear fuel supply to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant – despite US rhetoric – is in fact an extremely clever move to dissuade Teheran from enriching its own fuel.

But as they say, there’s only this much that Putin can take, and there’s only that much that Israel can flirt with. Till the time Israel looks beyond US influence – and dare we say, even their mothers and grandmothers – and realises that Russia is actually on their side, this great nation might actually end up in creating their biggest foe in history! For hell hath no fury as Putin scorned, and it doesn’t require Einstein to know that!