Signed recently by the P-5+1 (US, UK, France, China, Russia+Germany) and Iran, the agreement, officially titled the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action” (JCPOA), took 20 tortuous months to negotiate, including 18 consecutive days of meetings, some of them into the night, during the run-up to its signing. That’s how high the stakes are.

By virtue of the deal, Iran will reduce by 98 percent its hoard of low-enriched uranium, the raw material for a nuclear bomb. Iran will also cut the number of its active centrifuges, the equipment for enriching uranium, by two-thirds, to 5,060.

These and other restrictions, effective 10 to 25 years, will stretch the break-out time Iran needs to make one nuclear bomb from the present estimated three months to one year. That’s time enough for the other contracting parties to stop Iran from completing the break-out if it made an attempt.

Rigorous and intrusive, technologically advanced monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will be in force indefinitely. This — and not Western intelligence — is the guarantee that the deal will work. The moment Iran made it difficult for the IAEA to do its job, it would be reasonable to assume that Iran was embarking on a break-out.

In return for these restrictions, Iran gets its hands on $100 billion to $150 billion in funds frozen by sanctions relevant to its nuclear program. Sanctions for Iran’s human rights violations and other issues are another matter. But in the hands of Iran, that much wealth could change the political dynamics of the Middle East.

A conventional weapons embargo on Iran will be lifted after five years. A missiles ban will be lifted after eight years.

US President Obama is pleased with this deal. It’s his baby, his main legacy in the making. One pundit has likened it to the “leap of faith” that former US President Nixon made when, in the midst of the Cold War, he decided to strike up a working relationship with a nuclear China that already had ambitions of becoming a hegemon.

Was that a winning bet? So far, China’s rise has been peaceful, except for some shenanigans in the South China Sea.

But don’t expect an Iranian transformation in the next several years. You can even expect an increase in tension in the Middle East as its Saudi-led Arab opponents brace themselves militarily against a wealthy Iran that has more robust support to give to its proxies: Al-Assad of Syria, the Hezbollah of Lebanon, the Houthis of Yemen.

This is balanced by a surge of Iranian trade with its Arab economic partners, with China, Russia and Europe, and even with Indonesia. Perhaps that long delayed joint venture for an oil refinery in Java will finally push through.

The idea and the hope is that in the span of a generation in which Iran, no longer embittered by sanctions, enjoys the fruits of engagement with the rest of the world, the country’s moderates will get confident and influential enough to engineer a strategic shift.

Not everybody is so impressed. Israel’s Bibi Netanyahu calls the deal a historic mistake that makes Iran a nuclear terrorist superpower. Other critics say it concedes too much for a delay, not a dismantling, of Iran’s nuclear program. The Republicans in US Congress would kill it outright if they could.

What do Bibi and other critics want? Obviously they want Iran to completely keep its hands off nuclear energy. They want no less than total surrender. That won’t happen. Iran, you see, isn’t Greece. So helpless was Greece that it was willing to trade its sovereignty for the bread of a bailout. Iran wasn’t negotiating from a similar position of helplessness.

No, Iran will keep its sovereignty. Thank you.

Jamil Maidan Flores is a Jakarta-based literary writer whose interests include philosophy and foreign policy. The views expressed here are his own. He may be contacted at jamilmaidanflores@gmail.com.

The post Jamil Maidan Flores: A Leap of Faith appeared first on The Jakarta Globe.

“The isles of Greece! The isles of Greece
Where burning Sappho loved and sung…”

Thus begins the immortal ode to the Greek revolution by Lord Byron. An English nobleman who lived most of his life a libertine romantic, Byron died a freedom fighter and Greek national hero in the early 1820s.

He fell in love with the Greek sunshine, then with the Greek cause, perhaps because, like him, most Greeks were Byronic: passionate, defiant, fatalistic and cynical. They still are. Like the heroes of their tragic dramas, they defy the Olympic gods and sneer at their immutable fate.

The gods and the goddess who rule the European financial architecture didn’t know that. So they miscalculated.

In the run-up to the July 5 Greek referendum on the bail-out package at one time on offer to the debt-crippled Greek economy, the leaders of the European Union (EU) bet that the Greek electorate would vote “yes” and accept willy-nilly the EU bailout formula. They assumed that only the most fanatical Greek nationalists would vote “no.”

And that most Greek voters would make a rational comparison between the pangs they’d suffer if they went out into the cold outside the Eurozone, and the rigors of the austerity that staying with the euro demanded.

The EU leaders thought the choice was a no-brainer: suffering austerity would be infinitely better than losing a lifeline to the only source of money within reach.

The EU was mistaken on two counts. First, it’s just as rational to conclude that the pain and the uncertainty of leaving the euro are still preferable to the crippling impact and the outrages of austerity. It’s not obvious that the only salvation lies in the lap of the EU.

Second, the EU erred in thinking that the referendum of July 5 was a rational process. To the Greek voter, it wasn’t.

It wasn’t about leaving or staying with the euro. Nor was it about bearing or dodging the yoke of austerity. To most Greek voters, I think, the referendum was all about human dignity. And all the emotions that surround one’s sense of dignity.

Even those who thought that a “yes” vote was the more pragmatic choice still voted “no.” Not a few among the crowd of revelers cavorting in the street to celebrate the “no” landslide must have felt like they were dancing on their own graves.

Maybe they were. If this proves to be a Pyrrhic victory and the Greeks have to give up the euro, there’ll be gnashing of teeth as imports of capital goods and fuel will dry up. But they have made a point.

Now it’s time to be conciliatory. To approach the creditors not as a supplicant but as a reasonable negotiator whose dignity is secure.

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has proposed a deal that’s almost a clone of the one rejected in the referendum. It has all the tax increases and the austerity that the EU originally demanded. The EU leaders would look foolish rejecting the offer, since it has everything they want of a deal — give or take a few details. To the average Greek, it doesn’t matter if this leads to the same privations he was hoping to avoid. He has his dignity.

The Greeks aren’t blameless. They deserve some pain. But they don’t deserve being crushed by equally blameworthy creditors. The EU should now take a hint from the IMF and restructure the $300 billion Greek debt so that austerity becomes bearable.

Then the European project remains intact, the Greek economy gets a chance to recover and economies all over the world, including Indonesia’s, are spared from the contagion of a European crisis. Hopefully.

Jamil Maidan Flores is a Jakarta-based literary writer whose interests include philosophy and foreign policy. The views expressed here are his own. He may be contacted at jamilmaidanflores@gmail.com.

The post El Indio: The Isles of Greece! How the EU Misjudged the Greek Mood appeared first on The Jakarta Globe.

Asean has merely said what’s necessary to say. In the Chairman’s Statement of the 26th Asean Summit late last month, it says, “We share the serious concerns expressed by some Leaders on the land reclamation being undertaken in the South China Sea, which has eroded trust and confidence and may undermine peace, security and stability in the South China Sea.”

These aren’t fighting words. They’re mild compared to the pugnacious rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of certain leaders. But they express a necessary consensus on an insidious danger.

The alternative is for Asean to roll over and play dead while China carries out plastic surgery on the marine features of the South China Sea.

As expected, China takes umbrage. Its foreign ministry spokesperson says Asean summits have no business discussing the South China Sea, since only four of the group’s members are involved in disputes over islets in the area.

But Asean has said nothing about territorial and sovereignty disputes. It has merely voiced concern at the impact of reclamation activities on the peace, security and stability of the South China Sea.

That, too, argues China, is none of Asean’s business because China can do anything it wants within its own territory. Maybe, if it’s really doing it within its own territory.

But reclamation is being carried out in disputed waters. This is therefore behavior that should be covered by the Code of Conduct of parties in the South China Sea that Asean and China are listlessly negotiating. Thus Asean has every right to discuss it and to reach a common position on the matter.

What the Asean statement fails to mention is an even more urgent concern: the environmental impact of the reclamation.

The China spokesperson insists that “relevant construction is lawful, justified and reasonable and thus beyond reproach.”

I’ll put my money on an article written for the Rajaratnam School of International Studies by researchers Youna Lyons and Wong Hiu Fung that says “large scale reclamation work in the South China Sea using living coral reefs as building material is causing severe environmental damage. It is also against international law.”

The researchers cite high resolution commercial satellite imaging that exposes China’s mechanical dredgers breaking up and raising hard materials from the sea, including coral reefs and all living organisms clinging to them, and then compacting them to create new land territory. Thus coral reefs in the Spratlys are being destroyed on a massive scale.

That is hardly “reasonable and beyond reproach.” Those coral reefs survived the millenniums while nurturing a wealth of biodiversity that has served humankind in good stead. But recently seized from their beds and wrecked by machines, some of them are lost forever. Lose them all and their biodiversity and you’ve lost much of the future.

Lyons and Wong point out that the coastal waters of the littoral states of the South China Sea are stressed and overfished. That there’s still a large fish catch in those waters may be due to larvae and juvenile fish drifting from the South China Sea reefs.

If those reefs were all converted into real estate, there would be much less fish to feed the people of eastern Asean and China itself.

International law obliges China not only to use sustainable management practices but also to consult with other affected states so that the transboundary impact of its reclamation could be prevented or managed. China hasn’t consulted anybody.

The China reclamation and its impact on the environment must therefore be addressed in the Asean-China talks toward a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.

It should also be taken up in all forums that care about biodiversity as a common heritage and as a large piece of the future of humankind.

Jamil Maidan Flores is a Jakarta-based literary writer whose interests include philosophy and foreign policy. The views expressed here are his own.

The post Jamil Maidan Flores: S. China Sea Reclamation Is Wrecking the Future appeared first on The Jakarta Globe.

My Nigerian friend, Sonala Olumhense, is a syndicated columnist with strong views on his country’s politics. He once regaled me with stories about how his president, Goodluck Jonathan, was uncannily true to his name, how weak he was, and how profligate his inner circle.

Goodluck Jonathan came out of nowhere and rose meteorically to the presidency in a little more than a decade. He was an environmental protection officer when he was picked to run as deputy governor in tandem with Diepreye Alamieyeseigha in the election of 1999 in his native Bayelsa State. The two won that election and were reelected in 2003.

In late 2005, Alamieyeseigha was impeached on charges of money laundering and Jonathan suddenly found himself governor. Then in the presidential election of 2007, the People’s Democratic Party shopped around for a vice-presidential candidate who would give no problems to the president once elected. Jonathan was a perfect fit.

Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was elected president in 2007 with Jonathan as his vice-president. Three years into his presidency, Yar’Adua went abroad for urgent medical treatment. He died shortly after he came back home. As legal successor, Jonathan became acting president, then president by virtue of his phenomenal luck.

Jonathan was elected president in his own right in April 2011, that time defeating Muhammadu Buhari, in elections that many denounced as rigged.

As president, Jonathan failed to deal with the terrorist organization, Boko Haram, which devastated the country’s northeast while kidnapping 270 girls from a boarding school. His luck proved powerless against the country’s endemic corruption.

Sonala laughed ruefully as he told me all this.

Jonathan’s luck ran out as he campaigned for reelection in 2015, in a rematch with Muhammadu Buhari. At one point the polls showed him trailing by two to one. The PDP had been in power since 1999; the people wanted change.

Buhari, 72, stands for that change if only because he has a record of forcefulness and a reputation that he’s Mr. Clean.

As an active general, he once ruled Nigeria with an iron hand after deposing a civilian government in a 1983 coup. His human rights record was so disgraceful, his anti-corruption campaign so heavy-handed and his economic policies so disastrous that nobody shed a tear when he was ousted in another coup in 1985.

Since then, however, claiming that he had been “converted to democracy,” he has run in every presidential election. Thrice he lost. He conceded each time. The fourth time was different. The people were tired of the weak incumbent.

Was it wise for Nigerians to gamble on a former dictator over a weak leader?

Wrote Sonala in his column: “This election is not about Jonathan. It is not about Buhari. It is about Nigeria as a country that has too long been taken for granted.”

To Buhari, then already the probable winner, he admonished: “It would be the final tragedy should you act as if … the standard of measurement will be lowered because you had popular support. The support is for the country, not for you, not your party.”

When the vote count showed that Buhari had won, Jonathan’s followers were shrieking, “Fraud!” There was a real danger of bloodshed. In the previous election, when Buhari lost, the followers of both candidates went at each other, resulting in the death of 800.

Jonathan promptly put in a phone call to Buhari, conceded defeat and congratulated him. “No political ambition is worth shedding the blood of any Nigerian,” he later explained.

With that gesture he showed all Nigerians what the election was all about. And in defeat he finally won the respect that eluded him when he was merely lucky. I’m sure Sonala can spare a kind word for him now.

Jamil Maidan Flores is a Jakarta-based literary writer whose interests include philosophy and foreign policy. The views expressed here are his own.

The post Jamil Maidan Flores — Goodbye Goodluck: Nigerian President Gains Respect in Defeat appeared first on The Jakarta Globe.

“Et tu Brute?” And you, too, Brutus? Those were the dying words of Julius Caesar, as he realized that even his best friend would drive a knife into his guts. Caesar ruled Rome and the known world, from 49 BCE until his assassination in 44 BCE.

Brutus, described as “Caesar’s angel,” later explained his part in the assassination as a case of patriotism trumping friendship.

Uncle Sam might as well have also gasped, “Et tu Brute?” when John Bull said he was joining the Chinese dragon in setting up the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

The United States is dead-set against the establishment of the AIIB, as it can outrival both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the two Bretton Woods institutions that ensure Western dominance of global finance.

The United Kingdom is supposed to be the closest friend and ally of the United States. Their “special relationship” is celebrated as the bedrock of their national policies. Yet some two weeks ago, Prime Minister David Cameroon announced that the UK would join the China-led EIIB as a founding member, in spite of broad hints by US officials that the Obama government wouldn’t be amused by the adventure.

Military spending is another issue on which the UK is wiggling out of US influence. The US today is putting up some 70 percent of the NATO’s aggregate budget. Naturally, it would like all other NATO members, including the UK, to maintain military spending at 2.0 percent of GDP — especially with the Russian bear on the prowl in the east.

That won’t happen. UK military spending, experts say, will be 1.95 percent of GDP this fiscal year, and 1.85 percent in the next. Other NATO members are probably spending much less. Russia, of course, has no objection.

But what rankles is the UK decision to join the AIIB bandwagon. That decision apparently nudged Germany, France and Italy to reveal last week their own intention to join the China-led development bank — in spite of US urgings that they desist until China committed itself to international standards of transparency, environmental sustainability, and labor and human rights.

Through the AIIB, along with supporting initiatives like the Maritime Silk Road, China is trying to reshape the world’s financial architecture. Or it may be building a new world economic order. And there’s nothing much the US can do but huff and puff. The moral is that the US should have been more zealous about its credibility.

If the US didn’t lose interest in reforming the Bretton Woods institutions, if US Congress had been more prompt in legislating support for an equitable distribution of voting rights in the IMF, China would have less incentive for setting up a rival institution.

Now who can resist the siren call of the world’s second largest economy? Not the four largest economies of Europe.

Soon Australia and South Korea will probably follow suit. Indonesia has already signed a preliminary agreement to become a founding member. After all, there’s a perfect match between the goals of the putative bank and Indonesia’s need for maritime infrastructures.

Even the Philippines, which has a simmering dispute with China in the South China Sea, has signed a similar preliminary agreement — in spite of its reliance on a mutual defense pact with the US for its security.

This sad loss of American influence isn’t something to cheer about. But there’s a positive side to it: nations have become more alive to and more jealous of their national interests.

As Brutus explained after he had participated in Caesar’s assassination, “Not that I loved Caesar less but that I loved Rome more.” The national interest comes ahead of the American Caesar. It is supreme.

Jamil Maidan Flores is a Jakarta-based literary writer whose interests include philosophy and foreign policy. The views expressed here are his own.

The post Jamil Maidan Flores: Et Tu Brute? US Allies Flock to China-led AIIB appeared first on The Jakarta Globe.