The tragedy threatening our species
Fidel Castro Ruz

I cannot speak as an economist or a scientist. I simply speak as a politician who wishes to unravel the economists’ and scientists’ arguments one way or another. I also try to sense the motivations of each one of those who make statements on these matters. Just twenty-two years ago, here in Havana, we had a great number of meetings with political, union, peasant and student leaders invited to our country as representatives of these sectors. They all agreed that the most important problem at that time was the enormous foreign debt accumulated by the nations of Latin America in 1985. That debt amounted to 350 billion dollars. The dollar then had a higher purchasing power than it does today.
A copy of the outcome of those meetings was sent to all the world governments, of course with some exceptions, because it might have seemed insulting. At that time, the petrodollars had flooded the market and the large transnational banks were virtually demanding that the countries accept high loans. Needless to say, the people responsible for the economy had taken on those commitments without consulting anybody. That period coincided with the presence of the most repressive and bloody governments this continent has ever suffered, installed by imperialism. Large sums were spent on weapons, luxuries and consumer goods. The subsequent debt grew to 800 billion dollars while today’s catastrophic dangers were being hatched, the dangers that weigh upon a population that doubled in just two decades and along with it, the number of those condemned to a life of extreme poverty. Today, in the Latin American region, the difference between the most favored population and the one with the lowest income is the greatest in the world.
Many years before the subjects of today’s debates were center stage, the struggles of the Third World focused on equally agonizing problems like the unequal exchange. Year after year it was discovered that the price of the industrialized nations’ exports, usually manufactured with our raw materials, would unilaterally grow while our basic exports remained unchanged. The price of coffee and cacao, just to mention two examples, was approximately 2,000 dollars a ton. A cup of coffee or a chocolate milkshake could be bought in cities like New York for a few cents; today, these cost several dollars, perhaps 30 or 40 times what they cost back then. Today, the purchase of a tractor, a truck or medical equipment require several times the volume of products that was needed to import them back then; jute, henequen and other Third World produced fibers that were substituted by synthetic ones succumbed to the same fate. In the meantime, tanned hides, rubber and natural fibers used in many textiles were being replaced by synthetic materials derived from the sophisticated petrochemical industry while sugar prices hit rock bottom, crushed by the large subsidies granted by the industrialized countries to their agricultural sector.
The former colonies or neocolonies that had been promised a glowing future after World War II had not yet awakened from the Bretton Woods dream. From top to bottom, the system had been designed for exploitation and plundering.
When consciousness was beginning to be roused, the other extremely adverse factors had not yet surfaced, such as the undreamed-of squandering of energy that industrialized countries had fallen prey to. They were paying less than two dollars a barrel of oil. The source of fuel, with the exception of the United States where it was very abundant, was basically in Third World countries, chiefly in the Middle East but also in Mexico, Venezuela, and later in Africa. But not all of the countries that by virtue of yet another white lie classified as “developing countries” were oil producers, since 82 of them are among the poorest and as a rule they must import oil. A terrible situation awaits them if food stuffs are to be transformed into biofuels or agrifuels, as the peasant and native movements in our region prefer to call them.
Thirty years ago, the idea of global warming hanging over our species’ life like a sword of Damocles was not even known by the immense majority of the inhabitants of our planet; even today there is great ignorance and confusion about these issues. If we listen to the spokesmen of the transnationals and their media, we are living in the best of all possible worlds: an economy ruled by the market, plus transnational capital, plus sophisticated technology equals a constant growth of productivity, higher GDP, higher living standards and every dream of the human species come true; the state should not interfere with anything, it should not even exist, other than as an instrument of the large financial capital.
But reality is hard-headed. Germany, one of the most highly industrialized countries in the world, loses sleep over its 10 percent unemployment. The toughest and least attractive jobs are taken by immigrants who, desperate in their growing poverty, break into industrialized Europe through any possible chink. Apparently, nobody is taking note of the number of inhabitants on our planet, growing precisely in the undeveloped countries.
More than 700 representatives of social organizations have just been meeting in Havana to discuss various issues raised in this reflection. Many of them set out their points of view and left indelible impressions on us. There is plenty of material to reflect upon as well as new events happening every day.
Even now, as a consequence of liberating a terrorist monster, two young men, who were fulfilling their legal duty in the Active Military Service, anxious to taste consumerism in the United States, hijacked a bus, crashed through one of the doors of the domestic flights terminal at the airport, drove up to a civilian aircraft and got on board with their hostages, demanding to be taken to the United States. A few days earlier, they had killed a soldier, who was standing guard, to steal two automatic weapons, and in the plane they fired four shots that killed a brave officer who, unarmed and held hostage in the bus, had attempted to prevent the plane’s hijacking. The impunity and the material gains that have rewarded any violent action against Cuba during the last half-century encourage such events. It had been many months since we had such an incident. All it needed was setting a notorious terrorist free and once again death come calling at our door. The perpetrators have not gone on trial yet because, in the course of events, both were wounded; one of them was shot by the other as he fired inside the plane, while they were struggling with the heroic army officer. Now, many people abroad are waiting for the reaction of our Courts and of the Council of State, while our people here are deeply outraged with these events. We really need a large dose of calmness and sangfroid to confront these problems.
The apocalyptic head of the empire declared more than five years ago that the United States armed forces had to be on the ready to make pre-emptive attacks on 60 or more countries in the world; nothing less than one third of the international community. Apparently, he is not satisfied with the death, the torture and the uprooting of millions of people to seize their natural resources and the product of their labors.
Meanwhile, the impressive international meeting that just concluded in Havana reaffirmed my personal conviction: every evil idea must be submitted to devastating criticism, avoiding any concession.

(Fidel Castro Ruz is The President of Cuba)

Time to have a baby
Mj Akbar

A REMARKABLE coincidence has taken place in the last five years. Two surprising decisions from asymmetrical orbits have coalesced to put two honest men into the highest positions of the country. Both were patriotic, professional, prudent, educated and unambiguously clean financially.
Abdul Kalam became President of India in the summer of 2002 and Manmohan Singh was sworn in as Prime Minister in the summer of 2004. Both had high profile careers, one in defence weaponry and the other in finance, but neither was a public figure, or had a mass profile. Both are household names today. What do Indians think of them now?
President Kalam’s popularity ratings, one hears, are around 80 per cent. For the life of me I cannot imagine what the remaining 20 per cent have against him. It couldn’t be his hair, could it?
He has done everything right as president.
He has protected the national interest whenever called upon to do so, subtly, calmly, with neither rhetoric nor exploitative sentiment. He has remained above partisan interests, whether in the coarse game of Assembly manipulation, or while gently deflecting the government towards a more reasonable approach in the Indo-US nuclear deal. His patriotism found a wonderful mission: in teaching the young that their finest personal investment was in the future prosperity of their nation. As an individual, his courtesy and warmth were self-evident.
He was a marginal presence in the nation’s consciousness when he entered Rashtrapati Bhavan. He will be genuinely missed if he leaves it after only five years.
Dr Manmohan Singh has taken just three years to become a disappointment. His career is a textbook case of good intentions not being good enough. You can’t be pregnant all your life. You also have to have the baby.
Once again, lots of pregnancy, but no baby.
His reputation for honesty has also soiled just a bit. No one in his senses believes that he is personally culpable. But a very damaging question is being asked. It is common knowledge that corruption is rife in the present Union Cabinet. Of what use is the prime minister’s honesty if he is presiding over a dishonest government, with some ministers collecting money with both hands, and a couple of feet as well? Dr Manmohan Singh’s silence is a form of abetment, and worse. He has compromised in order to preserve his job. It is guilt by association.
In a smart piece of positioning, Dr Singh has preserved a waterproof image despite 16 years in the thick, and occasionally muck, of politics. The contradictions are beginning to chip at the waterproofing.
For starters, you cannot be above politics in a job that demands consummate political skills. Manmohan Singh has all the virtues required of his principal secretary when he needs the qualities of a prime minister. He is the first prime minister of India who cannot communicate with the voter. He goes to election meetings only because he has a wide-bodied aeroplane at his command, paid for by the voters. No one listens to him. Drummed up crowds fidget or yawn, eager to be released from ennui. Rahul Gandhi has to do the campaigning for him in Uttar Pradesh. Manmohan Singh has power without responsibility for the vote, which leads to disconnect with the voter.
It is now common to suggest that the Congress vehicle is stranded because it has two steering wheels. But consider another possibility. If Dr Singh had the qualities of a political leader, with the flexibility and communication skills needed to move forward, this vehicle might have acquired two engines instead of two steering wheels. Instead, Mrs Sonia Gandhi has had to write letters to the prime minister recording her objections to government policy. This means, at least in her mind, that even the single engine of this vehicle is stalling because the government has either gone into neutral gear, or is in reverse. Why else would she place her qualifications on record?
The voter has no sympathy for excuses. He — or, more important, she, for the really decisive voter is now the woman — elected a government that would deliver, not one that would dither.
The allies of the Congress know that they will have to share the costs of failed leadership without having been given the most important portfolios in this government. Their unease is seeping through in their body language, and is getting vehement in their private language.
When the Left and the BJP set aside their almost irreconcilable differences and came together on the floor of the Lok Sabha over the blatant attempt by some American legislators to pressurise Delhi over our relations with Iran, they were sending two messages, one explicit, and the other implicit. The first, obvious, one was to the United States: India is not, and never will be, a client state. The second message was unstated, and might even be denied if you discuss it. But they were also sending a signal to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh who has eroded his credibility by seeming to cut corners in his hurry to push the Indo-US nuclear deal. It is true that Dr Singh was badly served by over-reaching bureaucrats who undersold the problems and oversold the advantages, but advisers don’t hang around to take the blame.
It is always bad news for a prime minister when Parliament feels that it has to draw a line he cannot cross on a matter of such vital national interest. A prime minister should know such cut-off lines out of a combination of instinct, knowledge, experience and honest advice.
Perhaps the reason why President Kalam smells of roses after five years in Delhi is because his job required him to be above politics. President Kalam was comfortable in this upper zone; he even enjoyed its temperate climate. A prime minister has no such luxury. He is a lung of Indian democracy, and democracy is a political nervous system. The prime minister is the executive authority of India, the first among equals in his Cabinet; he is not above his Cabinet. He cannot claim the Nobel Prize for Clean Hands while some of his Cabinet colleagues are mopping up the stuff from a swill.
It is possible that Dr Manmohan Singh’s preferred virtues would make him a better president than prime minister. President Kalam has laid down a condition for re-election that is virtually impossible for the political system to meet. He wants all three principal blocs, the Congress, BJP and the Left, to support him for a second term. Only a very remote set of compulsions could engineer that.
The president’s palace is going to be vacant soon. Dr Manmohan Singh might consider changing his address. He will remain in the neighbourhood. President Kalam has got us used to a soft-spoken, gentle, decent, likeable, honest, prudent, professional, educated person at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. Dr Singh fits the job description down to every comma.

We’re talking about a newspaper, not a snoozepaper
William Rees Mogg

THE Mail on Sunday is celebrating its 25th birthday, and there is a great deal to celebrate. I can well remember Fleet Street’s reaction to the launch in 1982. Most of the newspaper pundits predicted disaster, usually for what seemed to be good reasons. Apart from The Sunday Telegraph, no other Sunday newspaper of substance had been launched since the Second World War. Several had closed; even Associated Newspapers had closed the old Sunday Dispatch. The launch of a new Sunday newspaper was thought to be a licence to lose money. Fleet Street lore was replete with stories of mid-market tabloids that had failed to find a market. Those stories went back to the days of the great Lord Northcliffe himself and the original launch of the Daily Mirror as a newspaper written by ladies for ladies — a concept that did not prove profitable.
The myths included the story of Lady Kemsley and the prize bull. The Daily Sketch — another mid-market tabloid — had published a front-page photograph of an exceptionally well endowed bull, which had won first prize at an agricultural show. Lady Kemsley, the wife of the newspaper’s proprietor, saw the first edition and protested to her husband on the grounds of public decency. Lord Kemsley ordered the removal of what might now be called the bull’s lunchbox. His order was obeyed: the presses were stopped and the bull was ‘castrated’. The next day the Editor of the Daily Sketch received a libel writ from the bull’s owner, alleging damage to his, and no doubt to the bull’s, reputation. The damages were heavy. It is fair to say that all the smartest alecks of Fleet Street forecast The Mail on Sunday would be another example of the newspaper rule that broadsheets should be stuffy and upmarket and tabloids should be noisy and sensational, and that there was no middle ground on which to pitch one’s tent.
In retrospect, it seems strange that this doctrine survived as long as it did, since the Daily Mail had already been converted to a tabloid and had been increasingly successful in that shape for more than a decade.
I was a contemporary of three men who deserve a large part of the credit for the founding of The Mail on Sunday. I wish they were still here to celebrate their achievement, but none of them is still alive. They were the late Lord Rothermere, the proprietor who decided on the launch, David English, the brilliant Editor of the Daily Mail, who advised on the relaunch in the early days, and Stewart Steven, who was not the first Editor but was the Editor who established the character of the newspaper — complete with its iconic advertising slogan: ‘A newspaper, not a snoozepaper.’ All these deserve much credit; as the column I write now for The Mail on Sunday used to be written by Stewart Steven, it is particularly satisfying to be able to give them the credit they deserve on these pages. Although Lord Rothermere, then Vere Harmsworth, was the heir to a major newspaper dynasty, he is really the Christopher Columbus of this story in the sense that ‘they all laughed at Christopher Columbus, when he said the world was round’.
The Fleet Street of the Sixties had not taken Vere Harmsworth as seriously as he deserved, with the exception of old Roy Thomson, the genial Canadian who was the dominant proprietor of that decade. Roy saw that Vere, though a modest man, had real business gifts, and they became friends. He also had courage; it takes courage for a proprietor to launch a high-risk project when most of the experts are forecasting failure. The history of newspapers is littered with chartered accountants who have failed as Fleet Street competitors because they were too risk-averse. Risks have to be taken in the newspaper business. In the case of The Mail on Sunday, it was, I think, David English who saw that the paper needed to be refocused on the formula of the Daily Mail to attract women readers and that it needed to have a strong magazine. But it was Vere Harmsworth who had to make the decision to launch, and he stuck by it in the difficult early months.