Tag: India

Agricultural innovations in Israel: reasons and impacts

Posted on by fqzhang

Israel is a land of many innovations and the birthplace of many progressive technologies. Here in this blog, I would like to discuss one of the areas that Israel has excelled: the agricultural sector. We often speak of necessity as the mother of all inventions and this is the absolutely true with regard to Israel. The nation is covered over 50% by desert, most of which is in the Negev desert to the south. The amount of land that is agriculturally productive is extremely limited, and whatever land that is suitable for growing crops faced the perennial problem of irrigation. Massive water projects in diverting the water from the Jordan River has been successful, but nevertheless, water conservation is key.

Many companies in Israel is currently working on developing new technologies that relates to water conservation. The most direct way to conserve water is to shorten the growing period for food crops. Many multinationals – Flextronics, Dupont, and even Google[1] – is interested in how to apply the Israeli technologies to market it to the world. The aim of these partnerships is to link up many Israeli startup firms with other large multinationals (most of which is based here in the US) and to leverage off the larger company’s capital, labor pools, counseling, coaching, etc, to develop the products or services that these Israeli companies need to market its product overseas and to ensure its survival in the face of global competition.

Many Israeli partnerships with firms in California is already very well known. The regions (the interiors of both California and Israel) both faces water shortages that disrupts the growing season, despite the strong amount of available sunshine and other factors that are conducive to productive agriculture. Israeli products found a strong demand in these regions of California. What is perhaps less known is the fact that many Israeli companies and technicians also involve themselves extensively with other countries around the world, such as China and India, which desires help to make its agriculture more productive. As world population increases and the amount of land available for crop growing decreases (due to urban sprawl, pollution, etc), there is now more of a demand for more efficient agriculture. Israel can capitalize on this trend of growing global demand and expand its market positions around the world.

We often speak of Israel as a startup nation that encourages innovation, in large part due to compensate for its lack of natural resources and other means of economic growth. While this is true to some extent, the impact of Israeli companies and their innovations are far more than simply economical. In many ways, it is also beneficial for Israel as a nation on the international stage. By encouraging partnerships between Israel and other nations in the form of business and technological exchanges, Israel can also inspire a feeling of goodwill from other nations around the world, which will benefit it diplomatically. In international diplomacy, we often speak of a “hard” versus “soft” power, and the combination of these two is what makes a nation strong. While Israel certainly already has plenty of “hard” power, defined as absolute military or economic clout, it can also increase its soft power, which is defined as cultural or scientific/technological prestige. Israel, through its networks of businesses that assist other nations around the world with their respective agricultural projects, can increase its global influence in areas that might never have anything else to do with Israel. This increase in Israel’s soft power will no doubt last longer in the long run, since respect for a country for what they are and what they do will outweigh any other form of diplomatic tools on the world stage.

As we can see from this discussion, something as small as having a small start-up focusing on agricultural innovations can go a long way in helping a nation to succeed on the international stage. The current path of encouraging innovation as pursued by the government and society of Israel will benefit the nation and the world in the long run.

[1] Google Shows Interest in Israeli Agritech Companies; http://www.israelagri.com/?CategoryID=482&ArticleID=1039

On Iran’s nuclear program: an alternative view

Posted on by fqzhang

Iranian nuclear program has drawn a significant amount of international attention – and condemnation – since it was uncovered in the early 2000s. While the issue is complex and multifaceted, I believe a few points should be examined. First, why is the Iranian government desirous of a nuclear program? And do the people really want it? Second, how should the rest of the world respond to it? Are the current negotiations with Iran the best way to approach this issue? And lastly, how should we all proceed from here?

The Israeli historian Martin van Creveld once said that “Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they woul6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00e54f31467c8833-640wid be crazy.” Although his words may seem extreme, we need to understand what motivated the Iranian leadership to develop nuclear power, even in the face of mounting international oppositions. The Iranians’ own argument is that they need to secure their own energy needs in the form of nuclear power. This argument is hardly plausible: Iran is sitting on the world’s second largest reserves (after Russia) of natural gas. Iran’s South Pars gas field alone is estimated to contain 14×10^12 m3 of gas, around 5.6% of the entire world’s prove gas reserves. Moreover, the country contains the 4th largest reserves of oil in the world. Iran’s energy needs can largely be satisfied by its oil and natural gas, as can be seen in the chart below. iran energyIf energy security is not the real reason, then what is? The true reasons for such a program, I believe, includes the following:

  1. Scientific and cultural prestige: Let’s imagine that the Iranians do not in fact want to build a nuclear weapon (a highly unlikely assumption for reasons that I will explain later), the mere fact that Iran is capable of developing advanced technology is something that the Iranian government can be proud of. In Iran, like many other parts of the world, scientific advances symbolizes the greater progress made in a society. The Iranian government sought to legitimize itself by promoting science and technology (much like the Soviet Union spent tremendous efforts in space exploration to legitimize the ideology of Communism). The Iranian people want to see progress being made in a variety of different fields, whether it be a rocket launch or a prospective nuclear power generation plant. Iran is gaining prestige by possessing those technologies. In a sense, scientific prestige is also tied into cultural prestige. We need to remember that Iran is more of a historical civilization than a nation-state in the modern sense of the word. The Iranian people had inhabited the Iranian Plateau for thousands of millenniums, and for much of that period Iran (or Persia, as it is known for most of its history), is a leading force among the world’s nations, and not merely in technology. It is in early modern times that Iran had fallen behind. In a way, many Iranians want to regain that sense of pride which have belonged to them historically. As heirs to a rich cultural heritage, Iranians today no doubt want to relive a part of its ancient glories; developing nuclear powers along the lines of other advanced nations will symbolize a part of this regaining of prestige.Mideast-Iran-Nuclear-_Horo2
  2. Competition from regional powers: Let’s take a look at how the world appears from the position of Iran, and why its nuclear ambitions will likely lead to nuclear weapons. Geographically, Iran couldn’t be in a more dangerous position. As the map below shows, Iran is surrounded by potential or probable enemies. To its west, Iraq, despite its Shia majority (the majority religion in Iran), is embroiled in a complicated civil war with the radical Islamic State (IS). Further west, we see a similar situation in Syria, where Iran-backed government of Bashar al-Assad is fighting a multi-front war against IS and moderate rebel forces. Each of these governments, if they fall, would produce a serious threat to Iran itself; and these are just the militant organizations. Organized threats by nation-states posed a bigger problem still. In its southwest, across the Persian Gulf, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is ferociously anti-Iranian and possesses a powerful modern military and an alliance with the United States; other Sunni Gulf States are no more friendlier. Further to the west, Iran faces the strongest military power in the region in the state of Israel, which had spear-headed efforts to contain the Iranian enrichment program. Further to its north and east, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India are all nuclear powers. In such a dangerous neighborhood, Iran felt that by developing the bomb, it can achieve a sort of parity with the other regional and global powers, at least in part to compensate for its relatively conventional forces.
  3. Security and Geopolitical leverage: In a point related to the second one, we need to be aware of the fact that Iran really has no natural allies. Culturally, it is the product of thousands of years of Persian civilization centered in the plateau of Iran, influenced by the forces of Shia Islam for centuries (today, an absolute majority of the world’s Shia Muslims lives in Iran), and the rise of political Islam in the form of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. For good or bad, few other countries possess such a unique historical experience. While this is a point of pride for many Iranians, at the same time, this also meant that Iran cannot count on any natural allies in the sense that the UK can rely on the US or Kuwait can rely on Saudi Arabia. The allies and friends it does have among governments are less than appealing: Iraq is bogged down in a struggle of a sectarian nature between Shia-dominated government and Sunni militant Islamists; likewise Syria is fighting its seemingly interminable civil war; the militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon is considered an ally and a way for Iran to project power into the eastern Mediterranean, but is categorized as a terrorist group (its military wings at Shia_Crescentleast) by most governments around the world. Strategically, Russia can be considered an ally, but that nation is struggling in the face of western sanctions for its involvement in the Crimea and a falling oil price. (For a discussion of how falling oil prices are influencing foreign policies in Russia and Iran, see here). Iran is looking for new partners in China and India by offering them energy security; but this venture will be unlikely to result in any serious partnerships, especially if this partnership would result in possible international retaliations by the West. Iran is therefore left to defend itself against a myriad of threats. In this case, a nuclearized Iran can protect itself, or so the Iranian leadership believed, from military blackmailing. At the same time, Iran can project its power in what is known as the “Shia Crescent”, an area encompassing Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, shaping itself into a regional power. Iran believes that thus nuclear power adds more muscle to its voice in regional and international affairs.

Needless to say, no matter what the reasons are for Iran’s acquisition of nuclear power, the rest of the world cannot be happy about the emergence of another potential nuclear power. However, the present countries that possess nuclear powers are in fact rebuilding their own respective nuclear arsenals even while they are denouncing the Iranian’s attempts to do so. We see that the rest of the world has been upgrading their own nuclear arsenals as well. In a recent article on Business Insider, the dangers of a nuclear war is emphasized more than ever before. However, the difference is that Iran is widely seen as an irresponsible government, and weapons in the hands of such a state is a worrying fact. But how should the rest of the world respond to it? Along the lines of journalist Fareed Zakaria, I believe that there are two main ways for the world to respond: 1. Forcing a Regime Change, or 2. Forcing a Policy Change. Let’s briefly define what each option meant and discuss their relative merits later:

  1. Regime Change:

In essence this would involve the fomenting of dissent, support democratic political movements, and with outside help in trying to overthrow the government of Iran in one form or another. Most likely, the United States would be the leader in such an effort. In the meanwhile, the US and other parts of the world should not have anything to do with Iran since it is an illegitimate government in their eyes. In the views many, the only way to properly address the nuclear situation with Iran is wait (or help) the government to change and then deal with them later.

  1. Policy Change:

This would mean that we will actively engage with the present government of Iran, treating them as an equal partner in these discussions, and really accept the fact that the government of Iran, however repulsive, is here to stay for some time to come. The dialogues will be conducted in an open manner and be peaceful in trying to reach a deal with Iran. For supporters of this option, they do not believe that this is a policy of appeasement, but rather, a step-by-step method toward achieving our objective, whatever they may be.

As a sophomore in college, I may not be in the best position to recommend foreign policy to those in the highest levels of government. But, nevertheless, I believe that here in the US and the rest of the world that does not desire to see a nuclearized Iran, have to decide on an option fast and not to oscillate back and forth between these two options. How can you possibly struck a deal with a government that you have every intention to help overthrow? Personally, I believe that the best option remains to bring Iran back into the international system, which it had been an outcast member since 1979, and to engage with it in more direct dialogue. We need to bring in international partners, which must include China, India and Russia, to discuss options with the Iranians on what to do. We must make Iran as an equal partner in its negotiations and not treat it as a criminal state. We need to recognize Iranian interests and why they sought to nuclearize themselves and to stress our own positions and concerns in why we do not want to see a nuclear program: no, it is not that we desire to encircle Iran on all sides, and no it is not that we desire to see a weakened Iran that is susceptible to invasions at any given moment. There are too much distrust and misconceptions between Iran and the West at the moment, each is mistrusting the other’s intentions. Therefore, if we can build an international coalition on resolving the issue, we can legitimize our intentions and make the Iranians understand that it is in the interest of the rest of world for them to denuclearize.

Current policies in delaying Iran’s nuclear programs have many merits to them. Firstly, the alternative, that of calling Iran to immediately destroy their nuclear facilities, will only strengthen their resolves in continuing to build them. If not in open, then in secret. Therefore, delaying what Iran has been attempting to do, by years (a very possible prospect), leaves the rest of the world with more options in dealing with the government. But more importantly, it buys the rest of the world time. The structure of government itself may likely change with the passage of years. I do not necessarily mean a revolution, but rather a gradual process of liberalization that will see a new generation of Iranian leaders that do not want to confront the world and or is filled with xenophobia, but rather sought peaceful coexistence. Younger generations of Iranian do not have the fervors of religious fanaticism that may have characterized some of their parents; in fact, I believe that many young Iranians today want to embrace the international system and be a part of modern society. I believe that will the passage of time, Iran can be a more responsible stakeholder in the international system and we can work with Iran toward this issue. However, in order to do this, we must first talk openly with Iran.

The importance of continuing dialogue with Iran cannot be overstated. If left isolated, Iran will retreat into itself and develop and deepen a paranoia of the rest of the world and perhaps the unthinkable will happen: a nuclearized Iran ready to use its weapons on its neighbors and beyond. As a historical analogy, imagine what if Henry Kissinger had never traveled to China to open up dialogue with that secluded nation, China today would possibly have been another North Korea: a government that is isolated and clung to an outdated ideology with a belligerent attitude toward the rest of the world. But to the credit of the US government (both the executive and the State department), rather than seeing this happen, the US government actively engaged with Chinese leadership and brought China into the international community of nations; a community that China has a stake in. In a similar line, I believe that by keeping the dialogue option open with Iran, we can hope to make some progress. Of course, this can only happen with Iranian commitment as well, and it needs to tone down the rhetoric against its neighbors and their allies, most notably Israel and the United States; it needs to show real commitment in following through with its promises; but above all, Iran needs to see that it is to its own security and benefit that it becomes a part of the international system rather than a challenger to it. Perhaps, eventually, Iran will be able to develop its own peaceful nuclear program, much as how Japan and South Korea has developed them, without feeling the need to weaponize it. All of these will likely take an enormous amount of time, likely decades; but I believe that in the end, the path of continued negotiations and dialogues with Iran will be preferable to any other alternative.

For related topics see:

Resource dependency, oil price decline, and the reshaping of the international order

Oil companies and the ethics of overseas investment

Approaches to freedom: struggles for independence as depicted on films

Posted on by fqzhang

Over winter break, out of boredom, and being the history buff that I am, I decided to watch two films on colonial struggles: the first, “Gandhi” (1982), is an Academy Award winning film that depicted the Indian leader’s life and works in its historical contexts. (In fact, it completely dominated the Academy Awards ceremony in 1983, it won 8 out of the 11 awards it got nominated for, including Best picture, Best Director, and Best Actor (Ben Kingsley). The second film I watched is the “Battle of Algiers” (1966), it’s original title is “La battaglia di Algeri” in Italian. It is shot in black and white in newsreel formatting, and depicts the collectivist struggles for freedom by a guerrilla group based in the city of Algiers in Algeria. The two films could not have been more different. For the purpose of this blog, I will talk mostly about “Gandhi” and compare it with the “Battle of Algiers” briefly.Gandhibattle of algiers

“Gandhi” was directed by Richard Attenborough, and is a notable biographical film based on the life and work of Mohandas Gandhi, the spiritual leader of India that led the nation towards freedom. In examining this film, we must place the film in the context of colonialism, examining the film as work of history and a biopic, and look at individual elements of the film.

Firstly, even though “Gandhi” is a work of fiction about the life of a man, it is also the struggles of a nation embodied in the life of one its most beloved figures. Indeed, the life of Gandhi is closely tied to his struggles through non-violent means to end colonialism in India. From the 17th century, the British began to gradually dominate the Indian subcontinent through the British East India Company; after the Indian Mutiny in 1857, India became directly administered by the British government as the British Raj. In time, the British began to educate a group of Indians of the upper castes, men like Gandhi, to serve as educated leaders of India. Nevertheless, the British did not materially advance the well-being of the average Indian during this time period, and Indian economy stagnated during the centuries of British rule.

It is against this backdrop of colonialism and exploitation that Gandhi came to the forefront. In many ways Gandhi is the type of Indian that is destined to be successful in the colonial framework: born in the Bania (Merchant) caste, his family is well-to-do and he was trained in England to become a lawyer. However, as depicted in the film, he was made painfully aware of the inequalities faced by Indian subjects of the British Empire when he encountered racism on a train in South Africa when he was 23. The film depicts this as the beginning of Gandhi’s non-violent resistance to enact changes in society, and his decision to fight against injustice not with a sword but through acts of resistance against what he sees as unjust laws. Gandhi later returned to India in 1914, and in association with other prominent Indians, continued the struggles for rights of Indians, this time in their home country. The film depicted the struggles that Gandhi faced as a member (and leader) of the Indian National Congress, frequently jailed for his beliefs by the British; as well as his struggles he faced with other members of the Indian resistance movement, some of whom pushed for more violent means to achieve freedom. However, despite such pressures, Gandhi held fast to his belief of “Satyagraha”, using “soul-force” to overcome injustice. The film’s nonviolent themes is in contrast to other colonial struggles of the time, most notably to the struggles against colonialism in French Algeria as depicted in “Battle of Algiers”. The two films are similar in using the theme of anticolonial struggles; but while “Gandhi” is a treatment of anti-colonialism through the life of a single individual, “Battle of Algiers” lacked such a definitive figure and is instead portrayed as a collectivist struggle, led by the National Liberation Front (in French, “Front de Libération Nationale”, or FLN). The violence accompanying the Battle of Algiers is all the more shocking when compared to Gandhi’s lifelong struggle against any such violent acts. However, as one of leaders in Battle of Algiers pointed out “Acts of violence don’t win wars. Neither wars nor revolutions. Terrorism is useful as a start. But then, the people themselves must act.” Perhaps, in end, the two messages in the films are similar: a revolt against colonialism must be a mass movement that takes to heart the needs and wants of the people it is trying to serve.batllealgiers_original

Given the film’s focus on Gandhi and his struggles for Indian independence, we must then examine the film through two different lens: as a work of historical drama in the traditional sense and as work of biopic. This movie is a traditional historical drama, a dramatic feature film. The individual is the focus of these kind of historical dram films, and the film tries to make the viewer see, hear but above all to feel what is happening on screen. When Gandhi is pleading with Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, urging the Muslims and Hindu to become united in post-independent India, we can feel his pain as his life-long dream of religious diversity in India is being shattered. A traditional historical drama uses all the standard conventions of plot elements, and tells the story to elicit a response from the viewer; “Gandhi” does all of these and it succeeded in telling us the story. As a work of biopic, Gandhi can best be classified as a “serious biofilm”, as the director have tried to follow the history as closely as possible instead of merely use history as a backdrop for certain events. We must bear in mind the director is under severe time constraint (in the span of a few hours) to cover the essential elements of Gandhi’s life and as such the film may seem crammed and overly dramatic at times, but that is not the purpose of the film.grabk-top-5-mahatma-gandhi-portrayals-on-screen

Finally, a film like Gandhi is without its critics, especially with regard to its factual accuracies. For instance, the film depicts Gandhi as completely innocent and naïve on the train in South Africa in 1897, refusing to leave the first class carriage when he was asked to. It is not very believable that Gandhi is so “ill-informed about the racial code of South Africa”. However, despite such mild inaccuracies, the overall direction of the film had the factual accuracies in mind, and the director meant for every event in the movie to be important and to collectively present to the viewer the image of Gandhi as truthfully as possible. Moreover, the film did not deliberately distort fact to suit its purpose, and taken as a whole, the film is a great work, both as a work of history and a biography. In any case, “Gandhi” is a great film to watch, and if you have time, please watch “Battle of Algiers” as well, just so gain a better understanding of what colonial struggles is all about.

Reflections on India’s hydroelectric project

Posted on by fqzhang

According to a recent article on Reuters, “India approves projects in dash for growth, alarming green groups”, author Tommy Wilkes discussed the Indian government’s approval to build the country’s largest hydroelectric power plant. The construction of this dam will upset the ecological environment of the area considerably by cutting down trees and reducing biodiversity. Therefore, the debate in this case is whether or not the government should allow a plant to be built in the state to promote the economic growth of the area and the nation, or should they look to protect the environment and to help promote the long-term environmental welfare of the region?

While it is easy to simply blame the shortsightedness of greedy industrialists or government officials only interested in tax revenues, we must bear in mind that India is a large developing nation with its own needs. For us here in the United States, which enjoys a high standard of living and free from most material needs, it can be inappropriate to pass judgment upon others that are less fortunate and are behind the American standard of living. Imagine telling the American or British industrial worker of the late 19th century to leave their jobs behind and their families starving because of concerns for the environment! We can think of society as being in a long series of progress, just the US and Western World had undergone significant environmental degradation in the past, and moved beyond that stage to the present, I believe that the rest of the industrializing world will undergo a similar process, eventually becoming more green-conscious once they had developed to a certain level. For the government of a developing nation that is responsible to the people, protecting the environment should not be on the top of the list at the present.

I know some may find this view extreme, and may offer several counterarguments. For example, they may reason, when the West was industrializing, we do not understand the impacts of pollution on the environment – but now we do, and therefore we need to tell the nations of the developing world to place the environment at the top of their priority. However, recall that Abraham Maslow, the famed psychologist, once came up with the “Hierarchy of Needs” for human beings and I would extend this logic to society as well. When a society still has its “needs” unmet – clean water, reliable source of enegy, etc – they cannot be worrying about things in the “self-actualization stage”, such as environmental justice and minimal carbon footprint.

To use the terms of ethics, we can see that what India is doing by building the dam is to maximize the most amount of benefits for the most amount of people, an utilitarian approach. This approach (first expressed by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century), despite its many drawbacks, do have the important advantage getting the most amount of benefits for a given limited amount of resources, something that is crucial for developing nations. However, this is not to suggest that we can simply let them off the hook for all environmental degradations, for in the interconnected world today, pollution from developing nations affect the world as much as developed ones. But we cannot judge countries in the same standards because each one has its own historical needs and priorities. As India and the rest of the world close the gap between themselves and the West, we can expect more from these countries and how they can start to make a positive impact toward the environment in the framework of their overall development.