Restoration of ecological resources of deserts in India, use of modern and indigenous technologies and social convergence.

 

BY PROF DR.Dr. Vet. Med. Ghulam Mohyuddin Wani

                                  And Dr Gazanfer Wani MBBS

Patron- in- chief

 Foundation for the advance of Science AND TECHNOLOGY OF KASHMIR, POST BOX 461, GPO SRINAGAR, 190001

Abstract  

 

Land loss cannot be compensated for many reasons. Firstly, land is limited and cannot be extended on this earth. The share of land on this planet is decreasing due to its loss at the polls through rotational forces, gravitational pulls and in its mass through climates changes. The surface losses have been accounted and reviewed. Desertification in India is increasing due to various reasons; some of them have been described as follow

1.   Increase in human and livestock population

                        Many programmers have been initiated in both cold and hot deserts of India from Ladakh to Rajasthan-Gujarat on belt one side and Himachal Pradesh- Haryana to Andra Pradesh on other side. A brief overview of the socio-cultural, developmental and organizational programmers and efforts shall be presented.

.  In hot deserts sand dune stabilization and shelter belt plantations were given greater weight age. In cold desert areas, crop cultivation and agro forestry were taken up. This was done by either using glacier residues through canals and dams or through diversion and watershed management. The technological interventions were executed only where assured irrigation was possible either by construction of channels for diversion of water flow. This has made a change in the ecological base at the terminal ends where these waters were traditionally used. Many misadventures of the mismatched technologies have been identified and shall be discussed.

The programmed was reviewed in 1994-95 by a Technical Committee.  The main reasons identified by the Committee for below satisfactory results under the programmed were,

 1 That area development was not taken up on indigenous wisdom of watershed as the involvement of the local people was non-existent, both in planning and execution of the programmed.

2.   Lack of funds and trained manpower was another drawback; the anthropological and other socio-economic considerations have been analysed.The lack of social integration of the project within the communities had negative effects on the success of entire programme.This paper analyses the aims of these projects i.e. whether projects have been effective in.

                                  A] The restoration of ecological balance

                                       b] Conservation and improvement of                   , water, livestock and natural resources.

 c] Community economic standards and livelihoods

          Of    resource poor sections of society in the rural areas. 

        e] Mitigation of climatic changes

 g] A holistic convergence approach involving all departments through watershed approach

 

Strategy and coverage

Cluster approach

1] The programmed was taken up on watershed basis

 2] A 500 hectare land was the unit of coverage. The main findings of the review can be enlisted as .

The reviews suggest that such efforts in future should incorporate and involve.

  A] The Panchayati Raj Institutions and farmers/inhabitants of the area of operation to have a bottom up approach and convergence in future.

B ]  Blocks and village levels Institute, units, NGO, SHG and other organization need convergence to achieve holistic development.

C ] A base line study to know various aspects of the existing productivity per unit land, crop .animal and other resources are to be measured  before the initiation of the programmed so as to compare them after interventions to monitor and assess the impact of the project.

D ]The voluntary organization /NGO /INSTITUTE selected for the given tasks should have motivated and honest people, trained to take up the given tasks in a transparent manner. Some of the conclusions drawn out this study can be summarized as.

                  1] Prior training of the agencies involved  is a must.

          2]In view of sand dune, desert environment and continuous draught threats in the Rajasthan shelter belt plantation and afforest ion  needs a local germplasm propagation base.

Coverage

The blocks, village clusters and the hectare need to be finalized on the basis of the visit of the experts to the area of operation. The funding agencies need to ensure successful results of the agencies hired or to be hired for proper monitoring.

 

Funding pattern, physical and financial performence checks need to be decided and documented in advance.

  A convergence meeting of sharing the resource pool and investment mechanism is essential.

 

Economic Justice and Democratization of Economy to create Ideal SocietyBy Prof Viswanathan, Director, International Socio-Economic Research Bureau(E Mail Id : economist@dataone.in)DECLARATION OF JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTSWe, the people of all the countries, in harmony with the sovereignty of the Universal Justice hold these truths to be self-evident that every creator has inalienable ‘Right to Ownership’ on his creations and the Natural laws empowers the creators that only he should use his creations exclusively for the welfare and uplift of the human society as a whole, in which he is an inseparable member.We declare with all judicial power derived from Natural laws that among all creations of man, his creation of capital alone has enormous ‘economic power’ capable of transforming all the socio-economic-political structures and reconstitute them to suit the aspirations of the owners of capital.We further declare in unequivocal terms since the capital is created by the collective labor of the people as a whole it should be directly owned by the people and then only the people would secure equal ‘Economic power’ and requisite ‘Fundamental Economic Rights’ with which they could establish an ‘Ideal Society’ in the way in which they desire.In accordance with ‘Economic Justice’ when the capital is directly owned by the people, we declare that the people would naturally secure what we consider the best among the ‘Fundamental Economic Rights’ like ‘Right to live’, ‘Right to work’, ‘Right to Economic Equality’, ‘Right to economic liberty’, ‘Right to Economic Security’, ‘Right to participate in the management’, ‘Right to capital creation’, ‘Right to live with fraternity’, and requisite ‘socio-economic-political rights to pursuit of decent happiness’We further proclaim when the people secure the above mentioned ‘fundamental rights’ they would succeed ultimately to establish an Ideal Society or Just Society for which they were tirelessly striving in transforming one form of society into another since the dawn of civilization, and to execute their noble concept of ‘One World, One Government, and One Humanity’ and in the end the people would be victorious in choosing what form of ‘Economic System’ that would be the best of all other systems for the establishment of an Ideal Society for which they would secure all requisite authorities of Natural laws that bestow on them.1. Emergence of Economic Systems:Different economic systems had emerged on the horizon of the history of mankind whenever different kinds of ‘Capital Ownership’ sprang up. Especially capitalism and socialism emerged after industrial revolution on the determinant factor of ‘capital ownership’. Generally in all economic systems ‘the ownership of capital’ forms the ‘basic structure’ of a society on which the fabrics of super structure of society are determined. The super structure usually exhibits the qualitative fabrics of society such as religion, culture, education, laws, customs and conventions etc. which are determined according to the aspirations of the owners of capital. In short the social elements are dependent factors of capital ownership.During the turbulent period of 1750s when Industrial Revolution burst upon the England and other European countries it introduced gigantic machines – a kind of capital – in the factory system of production of goods and services. It engulfed the mankind like huge deluge and tossed the world societies and changed each and every super structural elements of society in such a manner not to even to trace out their originality. We, the people, at that period were deeply perplexed and confused what to do as we were in the vicinity of utter economic ignorance.2. Two Economic Affidavits:During Industrial Revolution the economic environments in the factory system was not only in muddle but also demoralizing the societies. No one had any knowledge how the economy was operating and how should it be operated. Everyone was expecting for the worst to come. Whole Europe was plunged into utter ignorance. At that crucial period of time it was Adam Smith, the Father of Economics, published his famous book ‘An enquiry into the Nature and Cause of the Wealth of Nations’ in 1776.3. Economic Affidavit of Adam Smith: In his book Adam Smith spelt out an ‘Economic Affidavit’ solemnly and sincerely that if we, the people, entrusted our capital to a few capitalists in the name of ‘Capitalism’ (Individualism), they would not only change even the sand into gold but also drive the mankind to march towards an ‘Ideal Society’ by modernizing production potentialities with the help of scientific technologies and division of labor. Completely ignoring the working class who constitutes the society, Adam Smith concentered and focused his interest on a few capitalists and advocated that they without the interference of State would accumulate wealth of nations with the help of division of labor using modern machines and assured that the few independent capitalists would moreover create a favorable climate for the establishment of Ideal Society by increasing production many folds. Adam Smith completely neglected the equitable distribution of wealth to the mass working class. He linked the establishment of an ideal society with the mass production but not equitable distribution of wealth. Thus he misguided the whole world convincingly and decisively for a long period during which the working class was thrown into appalling poverty and horrible living hood.Ricardo and Malthus, drawing he thread of arguments from the wisdom of Adam Smith, eloquently presented their views in favor of a few capitalists and equally convinced the people to surrender their capital in the possession of capitalists who would solve all the socioeconomic problems of mankind. Thus when the people entrusted their capital in the hands of a few capitalists a ‘Capitalistic Mode of Production’ emerged with strong magnitudes in England and some other European countries. This capitalistic mode of production, shattering hitherto existing highly valuable cultures and customs of people, created a complex and conflicting, and highly demoralizing ‘Capitalistic Society’.The newly emerged ‘capitalistic Society’ forced the social elements such as law, art, culture, customs, religion, education and other economic and political rights and liberties to work for the benefit and security of a few capitalists because on their welfare the welfare of mass working class was depending on. The capitalistic mode of production converted the ‘Right to live’ of mass working class into a dependent factor of the security of the capitalist class who owned the capital and modern factories. This was because if a capitalist collapsed with his factory, the livelihood of the workers working in that factory would also collapse. So all the social elements ranging from culture to human liberty had to work for the security of a few capitalists. Thus the Ideal Society which the people dreamt for long span of time became a myth and mirage. In the capitalistic mode of production the Ideal Society was meant by ‘Capitalistic Society’ representing a few capitalists.4. Counter Economic Affidavit of Karl Marx: Having abundant flow of sympathy on the exploited mass working class and endless stream of hatred on the capitalists who caused for the appalling poverty of workers the mentally and morally agitated Karl Marx and Engels declared a ‘Counter Affidavit’ in 1848 in their ‘Communist Manifesto’ and Karl Marx alone in 1867 in his magnum opus the Das Capital. In their counter affidavit they advocated that if We, the people, forfeited our capital from the few capitalists with the help of Bolsheviks (communists) and entrusted the capital in the hands of the ‘State’ under the control of ‘Proletariat Dictatorship’, that the ‘State’ would lead us ‘Towards an Ideal Society’ and establish ‘One World’.* Believing their ‘Counter Affidavit’ word by word, in the October Revolution of 1917 we forfeited our capital from the few capitalists and handed over it to the trustworthy of the ‘State’. The State introduced a ‘Socialistic mode of production’ and on the basis of this, a fearful and subjugating ‘Socialistic Society’ emerged. The working class was engulfed with awe and fearsome and terribly perplexed on the outcome of the ‘Revolution’ and utterly disappointed for not even tracing any hope of achieving ‘Ideal Society’ which their Bolshevik masters promised during the ‘Revolution’.__________________________________________________________________ *In the words of Karl Marx : “ In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-round development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe in its banners : From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”– Marx(1875), pp 21-23Karl Marx and Engels were not alive at that time of October Revolution. They were great champions for working class and ‘buts’ about it. They worried wept for working class, they suffered for working class, they sacrificed everything for the working class, and above all they were exiled, especially Karl Marx, from country to country for the cause of working class, and they really wanted to see the working class of all the countries in an ‘Ideal Society’. But the ‘October Revolution’ in Russia proved that their ‘Theory and Practice’ did not coordinate with each other and did not function in harmony. There was something wrong in the ‘Theory and practice’ which resulted in utter collapse of Socialism at the end process. What was the fault that penetrated for its collapse?I have same streak of opinion in respect of Adam Smith and Malthus as well. I believe when they advocated that we, the people, should entrust our capital in the possession of few capitalists, they believed that the capitalists would not exploit the working class. But when their theories put into practice it was the selfish capitalists who manipulated their theories as convenient and convincing tools to exploit the mass working class. It was the capitalists who portrayed the theories in a darkest dark when they put them in practice because of their selfish motives. In other words there was unbridgeable disparity ( a deep wide chasm) between the theory and practice which the capitalists utilized it to fulfill their selfish motive of maximization of profit in exploiting the mass working class. What was the terrible fault that was penetrating here also? Though the original proponents of capitalistic and socialistic theories were not enemies of working class, the executors of these theories, the capitalists on one hand and the ‘State’ on the other hand misled the working class for their selfish motives. The primary fault was that we, the people, instead of retaining the capital with us, separating ourselves into two diametrically opposite poles, surrendered our capital to a few capitalists in West European and North American countries and to ‘State’ in Russia, China and other East European countries. The inherent contradictions that deeply and widely penetrated in the theories and practices of the two economic systems originated a fierce vicious spiral and exploded like a ‘Big Bang’ and scattered away violently but suddenly all the socio-economic problems throughout the world like inextinguishable fire balls. Instead of establishing an ‘Ideal Society’ these two systems, even after a prolonged period of experiments, have pushed the mankind at the verge of nuclear holocaust and wide spread day – to-day terrorism.5. Democrism – People’s Direct Ownership of Capital: As long as more than 200 years, Capitalism had left no avenues unexplored to establish an Ideal Society but disastrously collapsed during 1930s throughout the world due to the pressure of its own weight of self contradictions and brutal ambition of maximization of profit. On the same footing, Communism too after exerting all methods of cruel tortures (Stalin’s roughshod treatment of the kulaks) in the name of ‘Proletariat Dictatorship’ for nearly 75 destroyed itself in 1992 in its own breeding place. As both the systems are now struggling for their own survival, they have now decided to end the ‘cold war’ between them. Since the both the systems pushed us into great disappointments and they did not effective economic techniques to solve our economic problems in accordance with ‘Economic Justice’, we, the people, hereby declare to forfeit our own capital both from the capitalists and the ‘State’ and retain it under our direct ownership in peaceful manner or by force if necessity demands and create a ‘new economic system’ known as ‘Democrism’ on the basis of people’s Direct Ownership of Capital and we, further declare the Natural Laws have entrusted upon us all executive powers to do so as our birth right. On the People’s Direct Ownership of Capital a just economic system known as ‘Democrism’ will in the world and it will provide us ‘Democratic Mode of Production’ which is an inevitable must for the establishment of an ‘Ideal or Just Society’. I venture to say in short,“Capitalism is popular and popularly defective;Socialism is destructive and destructively popular; Democrism is justifiable and justifiably inevitable.”Whatever race we relate to, whatever language we speak to, whatever color we cover to, whatever religion we follow to, whatever nation we belong to, we are always being influenced by justice and by its emphatic authority of supremacy. The laws may be in transient from time to time, and vary from country to country, but the concept of justice remains illuminant everywhere. We want justice, only the justice and nothing but the justice. Throughout the long passage of history we have honored justice; we have kept in high esteem the men of justice right from king Solomon to Gandhiji . We have unshakable faith that justice is perpetual and ever pervading. We have always fought for justice and it has united us without any discrimination. In his book ‘Anatomy of Liberty’, William O. Douglas, the Justice to the United States Supreme Court, says this truth in every respect as follows: “The appetite for justice is indeed a cementing influence amon all races, whatever language they speak, whatever of their skin”-Douglas,William O. “Anatomy of Liberty” (p: xxiv) : (1965)The universal fact is that if there is justice there will be harmony and immortality. The scientific facts are immortal because they are based on experimental truths. On the other hand if the socio-economic-political principles want to be immortal they should based on justice, only the justice and nothing but justice and perhaps on natural justice. The capitalistic and socialistic principles lack application of justice and therefore they struggle vainly to solve our life problems and they are marching towards their last destiny – the inevitable grave yard. Keeping the above facts in mind I have with utmost care and concern formulated the economic principles on the natural justice in the name of ‘DEMOCRISM’ which will secure universal acceptability. The genesis of all natural justices is to uphold ‘People’s Direct Ownership of Capital’ for which we have to forfeit our capital from the few capitalists and the ‘State’. Why? “People’s Direct Ownership of Capital : Why do we want?” 1. Denying the natural justice of ‘Right to live’ by Capitalism and Socialism: (Capital promotes and intensifies war)We, the people of all the countries, unanimously hate intensely the wars which germinate in any form or for any cause. Naturally we are peace loving people. Despite our strong protests the wars have been fought all over the world and billions and billions of innocent people having no association with the war, have been brutally killed and massacred and the skeletons of these people have been heaped like mountains in graveyards. What cause underlies for these wars? The answer is simply one word – ‘the capital’. It is the ‘Ownership of Capital’ by a few capitalists or the ‘State’ that attributes for all kinds of war that negates one’s ‘Right to live’ in the name of patriotism in particular.Let us for time being set aside the wars fought before Industrial Revolution. The factory system facilitated for the production of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ that can be employed from the land, from the ocean and from the air. The whole world turned into open battle field for the nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles, supersonic jets, various kinds of military rockets and the military satellites orbiting the earth. Whatever might be the causes of First and Second World Wars, but their consequences were horrible that pushed the mankind to the very verge of its extinction from the earth planet. Why?Wars before and after Industrial Revolution: Before the industrialization the wars were fought on a particular battle fields and between two hostile warriors only. The range of destruction was very narrow and limited in coverage because the warriors used only spears and swords. The weapons were manufactured in cottage industries or by the warriors themselves. Natural boundaries like mountains, rivers, oceans and great deserts prevented the enemies to enter into a independent country.After industrial revolution, weapons of mass destruction were produced with the help of highly sophisticated technologies with help of huge capital in factories owned by a few capitalists and the ‘State’. The natural bounties disappeared and the whole world became open battle field. These weapons were maneuvered only by the highly skilled technocrats. The technocrats used these weapons on the common innocent people to terrorize the enemy-governments to surrender immediately. For example, in World War II USA used nuclear atom bombs to bombard on millions of Japanese civilians and terrorized the government to surrender without fighting in the battle field. Nowadays the battle fields are disappeared and the whole world has become open battle field in the face of mighty ballistic missiles and nuclear atom bombs. They can be produced only with the help of scientists and huge capital owned by the ‘State’ and a ‘few capitalists’. As long as the capital is owned by the ‘State’ and ‘few capitalists’ we cannot escape from nuclear holocaust. Originally Capital was created by the working class to assist them to increase their productivity of consumption goods. As soon as the capital went into the illegal ownership of ‘State’ and ‘Capitalists’ it was used for the production of mass destructive weapons. If we scrutinize the expenditure of the world governments we can detect that a large portion of government expenditure has been allocated for ‘military up gradation’ than for the ‘promotion of education’ and ‘elimination of poverty’. 2. ECONOMIC THEORY OF WAR :Firstly “if the accumulation of destructive capital increases the temptation for war will increase and vice versa”. The destructive capital means the capital that is used for the production of destructive weapons used by military forces. Secondly the difference in economic ideology of a country prompts it to increase its military power to show its ideological success over the other country and spread its ideology over other countries through war. For example USA and Russia used war as a weapon to spread their capitalistic and socialistic ideologies over other countries. The pages of recent past history will illustrate the fact and also the reason for accumulation of nuclear weapons and other variety of scientific weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly on the globalization of world economy the capitalist rich countries invest huge volume of their excessive capital in poor and developing countries. In order to protect their huge capital from nationalization by the beneficiary countries a mighty military force is required by the investing countries. For instance the American war and threatening of war over Arabian countries to protect her huge capital invested in exploration of petrol and fuel industries. Now American capitalists are investing billion and billions of dollar in I T industries of India and other developing countries. The American capitalists believe that they can protect their capital by their country’s military power. If any country try to nationalize these industries it will result in war. Fourthly the over production of industrial goods by rich countries force them to dump their over production in poor countries through their military power. Economic reason for two world wars : Virtually after Industrial Revolution in most of the European countries the capital was owned by a few individuals. Since the very aim of capitalism was ‘maximization of profit’ the workers were paid less and it resulted in deficiency of effective demand which caused for ‘over production’. These European countries occupied the poor countries by their military power and converted them as their ‘political colonies’ and with the concept of ‘Free Trade’, they dumped their over-production in the colonies and also exploited the wealth of the colonies. India was the notorious example for that. With the help of exploited wealth these ‘mother countries’ strengthened mainly their military power. The safety and security of the other ‘Dictatorial European countries’ which had ‘State or less individual Ownership of Capital’ were in jeopardy and unprotected in front of the mighty capitalist countries. On detection of the geographical track these countries found that there were no countries in the world to occupy them as their colonies for exploitation in order to increase their wealth and thereby their military power. These lately wakened dictatorial countries sniffed the fact that their ‘political and military supremacy’ would be pulled down rapidly on the downward track. In order to surpass the supremacy of the Capitalistic European Countries the ‘Dictatorial European Countries, found no other alternative except ‘war’ on the Capitalistic European Countries and on their colonies all over the world. The ‘lust for supremacy’ over the other countries forced them to wage two world wars. Napoleon and Hitler waged war against all of Europe because for the sake of supremacy.Ayn Rand emphatically points out the genesis for the two world wars in his book ‘Capitalism’ as follows:“……World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia,who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by alliance of‘Nazi’ Germany with the Soviet Russia and their attack on Polland” * – Rand Ayn :“Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” (New American Library-1967) p:37 In this nuclear age we witness a political and economic turbulence all over the world for a mad race for military equilibrium and economic supremacy. Both the Capitalism and Socialism have no blue-print to terminate the opportunity for Third World War. The rich capitalist and socialist countries want to become richer and richer by pushing the vast majority of poor countries to become poorer and poorer as per World Economic Reports. At present the silent turbulence boiling in the poor countries will burst into a Third World War which will be fought between the rich northern countries and the poor southern countries of the world and result in nuclear holocaust. That is why the USA is very keen on preventing the proliferation of nuclear technology among the southern countries using its military might. The only way left for the mankind to stop the flow of ever threatening danger of nuclear war is the execution of economic equality by rich countries in extending their helping hand to poor countries to pull them up from poverty and to reduce the economic imbalance between rich and poor. The capitalist countries will not permit the economic equality within and without but fight for upholding their economic supremacy which will be the ultimate cause for the Third World War.We, the people, therefore, have no other alternative except to forfeit our capital from the capitalists and the ‘State’ and retain it under our ‘Direct Ownership’ to coordinate with the command of Natural Laws to save the mankind. 2.1. Consequences of World wars and destructive capital:The First World War was fought between 1914 and 1918. During the span of 4 years the war was fought violently 120 million seconds. Nearly 48 million people (including soldiers) were dead and wounded.* In other words in every 10 seconds 4 people were killed either dead or wounded.· Nehru, Jawaharlal : “Glimpses World History” : p.637In the Second World War When the war was virtually approaching its end, on 6th August, 1945 an Atom bomb by name ‘Little Boy’ – a new war machine that the mankind hitherto never experienced – was dropped on Hiroshima. With in 10 seconds one million innocent people were killed. The first world war took 10 seconds to kill 4 people but the second world war, at its end, took 10 seconds to kill one million innocent people. The annihilation depends on the density of population of a city on which an atom bomb drops on. The Super Powers like USA and Russia, have now heaped in their arsenal million times more powerful atom bombs than the one that was dropped on Hiroshima.No doubt the atom bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were invented by the nuclear scientists. The billion dollar question is whether the scientists produced them with their bare hands or in cottage industries or in sophisticated industries created by huge capital. No capitalist will ever afford such huge capital for the production of weapons of mass destruction because their aim is always ‘maximization of profit’. Only the State can siphon huge capital for the production of atomic bombs only with the help scientists to threaten the other countries and to enjoy the status of ‘super powers’.Though the atom bombs are the brain-children of atomic physicists the capital required to manufacture them is funded only by the governments secretly against the wishes of the people. As long as the capital is owned by the governments, irrespective of Socialist or Capitalist governments, they spend huge capital for the production of atom bombs in order to achieve military supremacy over other countries or to attain at least an equilibrium in military power. Extensively it is the hard-core radical politicians brain wash the people under the guise of ‘patriotism’, ‘National security’ and ‘National pride’ for the production of atom bombs and other ballistic weapons. Since most of the atomic scientists are the government scientists they have to produce atom bombs at the insistence of governments in the name of national security.“In 1943 the Manhatten Project Laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico, withJ.Robert Oppenheimer as its director, was assigned the task of developing anatom bomb. The first test at Alamogordo on July 16, 1945, was an outstandingsuccess (the desert sand was fused to glass for hundreds of yards around thethe site). In August two atom bombs were dropped on Japan”.“Hiroshima inaugurated not only a new age of science but a new kind of scientists-the government servants whose knowledge and talent are an important part of thenational arsenal. Furthermore, the scientists were now much more conscious of theirsocial position and responsibilities. This was true in all advanced industrial countries, put particularly in the United States and the Soviet Union. Presumably, Sovietscientists were satisfied to follow the dictates of government leaders, but after WorldWar II, Oppenheimer and other American scientists entered into a great debate over the human, political and social implications of atomic science and a profound searching of their own consciences. Oppenheimer resisted the building of the hydrogen bomb – a much more devastating weapon than the bombs used against Japan – in the early1950’s, and he made important enemies. When Oppenheimer’s security clearance waswithdrawn in 1954, a great outcry from his colleagues expressed more than personalindignation. The Frankenstein myth appeared to be true, and the monster had lockedthe scientist out of his own laboratory. Certain branches of scientific research are not only secret today, they are expensive secrets; the cyclotrons and reactors of the 1960’s are far beyond the means of any university or other institution without government support”.*( * – Cantor, Norman F. – “Western Civilization : Its Genesis and Destiny” III –1970; pp:528-529)I can arrive two conclusions from deducing the above historical facts:Firstly, we have to free the atomic scientists from the clutches of governments.Secondly, we have to forfeit our capital from the hands of governments and to keep it under our own control and possession.Unless we, the people, forfeit our own capital from the governments and restore ‘people’s direct ownership of capital’ we could not prevent the governments from the mad race for producing ‘weapons of mass destruction’ ranging from AK-47 to atom bombs (of 20,000 megaton attack)When we pay the tax-money to the governments, we intend tacitly that they would spend it to solve our poverty; but they do not do so. In a speech on April 16, 1953, President Eisenhower said :“Every gun is fired, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed … The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than thirty cities…… We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than eight thousand people…………This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron…….”Professor Dallas W. Smythe of Illinois said, “Billions for defense but not a cent for socialism. It is not socialism to have the government spend 50 billion dollars for weapons; it would be socialism if the government spent the same amount for education or for public works”.When we entrusted our capital to the capitalist as well as the socialist governments we constituted a tacit ‘Economic Contract’ with governments. The first and foremost element of the ‘Economic Contract’ was that the governments should utilize our capital to solve our basic economic problems such as poverty, unemployment, economic disparity etc. But the governments in violation of the Economic Contract have spent our capital to destroy our own survival by engaging in the production of weapons- mass-destruction. The governments with the help of scientists produce variety of ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs and test them day in day out to display their scientific genius and military power to other governments. The accumulation of such deadly weapons have now pushed the mankind to the very verge of nuclear holocaust. We, the people of all the countries, therefore, want to recover our capital from the governments and to keep it under our own control and ownership to preserve a perpetual world peace, our birth right.__________________________________________________________________________________”Little Boy” is the nick name given to the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. It was Monday morning. Little Boy was dropped from the Enola Gay, one of the B-29 bombers that flew over Hiroshima on that day. Little BoyAfter being released, it took about a minute for Little Boy to reach the point of explosion. Little Boy exploded at approximately 8:15 a.m. (Japan Standard Time) when it reached an altitude of 2,000 ft above the building that is today called the “A-Bomb Dome.” The July 24, 1995 issue of Newsweek writes: “A bright light filled the plane,” wrote Lt. Col. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb. “We turned back to look at Hiroshima. The city was hidden by that awful cloud…boiling up, mushrooming.” For a moment, no one spoke. Then everyone was talking. “Look at that! Look at that! Look at that!” exclaimed the co-pilot, Robert Lewis, pounding on Tibbets’s shoulder. Lewis said he could taste atomic fission; it tasted like lead. Then he turned away to write in his journal. “My God,” he asked himself, “what have we done?” (special report, “Hiroshima: August 6, 1945″)note: Paul Tibbets was Colonel, not “Lt. Colonel,” when he was the pilot of the Enola Gay. The Little Boy generated an enormous amount of energy in terms of air pressure and heat. In addition, it generated a significant amount of radiation (Gamma ray and neutrons) that subsequently caused devastating human injuries. The people who saw the Little Boy often say “We saw another sun in the sky when it exploded.” The heat and the light generated by the Little Boy were far stronger than bombs which they had seen before. When the heat wave reached ground level it burnt all before it including people. The strong wind generated by the bomb destroyed most of the houses and buildings within a 1.5 miles radius. When the wind reached the mountains, it was reflected and again hit the people in the city center. The wind generated by Little Boy caused the most serious damage to the city and people. The radiation generated by the bomb caused long-term problems to those affected. Many people died within the first few months and many more in subsequent years because of radiation exposure. Some people had genetic problems which sometimes resulted in having malformed babies or being unable to have children. It is believed that more than 140,000 people died by the end of the year. They were citizens including students, soldiers and Koreans who worked in factories within the city. The total number of people who have died due to the bomb is estimated to be 200,000. The A-Bombs used over Japan; Little Boy (left) and Fat Man (right)Just three days after the bomb was dropped to Hiroshima, the second atomic bomb called “Fat Man” was dropped to Nagasaki. Though the amount of energy generated by the bomb dropped to Nagasaki was significantly larger than that of the Little Boy, the damage given to the city was slighter than that given to Hiroshima due to the geographic structure of the city. It is estimated that approximately 70,000 people died by the end of the year because of the bombing. We strongly believe that the world must learn about weapons of total destruction. We hope that the information presented here will help you understand the pain and devastation that nuclear weapons can cause. We don’t want you to just feel sorry for the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the war inflicted untold pain and suffering on many people in Asia and the Pacific. Rather we want you to work with us to ensure that all of us can live in a safe world. We hope this document helps you understand what it was, what it means and what we have to do.____________________________________________________________________2.2 The cause for dropping atom-bomb on Japan:There are two theories for dropping atom bomb on Japan. The first is to take retaliation on Japan for its attack on Pearl Harbor. The second is to prevent Socialist Russia to capture Japan. The first theory do not sound reasonable because : Hitler committed suicide on 30th April, 1945. Immediately on 7th May the Germans agreed to unconditional surrender. Moreover Mussolini and his mistress were killed on April by anti-Fascist Italian partisans. Japan’s position was now completely helpless, and the emperor supported a party in the Japanese government that wished to seek a negotiated peace. The second world war was more or less approaching to its end.The second theory sounds well because :On 16th July 1945 President Harry S. Truman – who had assumed office on Roosevelt’s death on 12th April, – was informed that an atom bomb had been successfully tested in New Mexico. The U.S. military found that no other weapon was so awful in destructive power as that of the atom bomb.At the same time the military forces of Socialist Russia were rapidly advancing towards Japan – the border country of Socialist Russia – to capture it.The Capitalist America was now in great distress that the Socialist Russia would not only capture Japan but also convert it a Socialist state. To uphold its supremacy America thought that it had no other choice except to execute two things: 1. to prevent immediately the invasion of Socialist Russia on Japan;2. Instead, it had to capture Japan without sacrificing any more lives of American soldiers in the invasion of Japan.In order to fulfill the above aims, the Capitalist America was left with only one option that was to use the awful new weapon – the atom bomb – on the civilians to force Japan to immediate surrender. Persuaded by the military strategy, Truman decided to use the bomb and it was dropped on the Japanese city Hiroshima on 6th August, 1945. About 80,000 civilians were killed immediately. Nearly 200,000 died later of radiation or were maimed for life.On the sudden turn of events, Soviet Russia sensed that Japan would go out its hand though it was within its reach. So two days later, on 8th August, Russia declared war on Japan and crossed the Manchurian frontier as the Japanese army remained committed to a fight to the finish. Since there was a race for supremacy between Socialist Russia and Capitalist America to capture Japan and moreover Russian army crossed the Manchurian frontier, the Capitalist America was forced to act swiftly. So, a second atom bomb – Fat Man – was dropped on Nagasaki on 9th August, 1945 by Capitalist America. Nearly 70,000 civilians died immediately. The following day the Japanese government offered to surrender. On 14th August the terms laid down at Potsdam were accepted and the Second World War was over.The truth is still solid and sound that the atom bombs were dropped on Japanese cities not because Japan would succeed in the second World War but because the governments of Capitalist America and Socialist Russia were arrogantly desirous to show their supremacy over the other as their economic systems were quite contradictory with each other. Both Capitalism and Communism wanted to prove that it was their system that ultimately led the Second World War towards victory. This ideological conflict between the America and Russia, at the end of the war, resulted in nuclear holocaust of Japan.There is no assurance to the people of all countries that another nuclear war will not burst out due to the ideological conflicts between the countries or to show their supremacy or for some other reasons the time will decide. Not only America and Russia but all the nuclear countries do not now wish either to destroy all their nuclear weapons or dismantle the industries which produce such weapons of mass destruction. Under these circumstances and ground realities how can we believe and console ourselves that yet another nuclear war will not threaten mankind and cause to vanish the very existence of mankind on the earth. So, we, the people of all the countries, declare to forfeit our capital from the few capitalists and the State and to keep it with ourselves. When we have ‘direct ownership of capital’ we will not allow our capital for the production of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction.3. Economic Justice in jeopardy and in peril: When we handed over our capital to a few capitalists, we were under strong presumption, that they would in certain sense, solve at least our basic problems of poverty and unemployment. On the contrary, since the very basic aim of capitalists is ‘maximization of profit’ they execute all kinds of nefarious designs to exploit the laborers and treat them like other business commodities. So with the enrichment of new technologies the capitalists always intend to replace the workers or minimize the labor force by sophisticated machines. The capitalists never show any interest to promote the economic justice in solving the human problems like poverty, unemployment, economic inequality, unequal distribution of income and wealth etc.But now the capitalists in some way or other have promoted the welfare of society only by way of promoting their own self interest. In other words if and only if the capitalists are assured that their self interest would be promoted then alone they will allow the betterment of welfare of other members of society. The welfare of huge majority of society is always considered to be a ‘dependent factor of a few capitalists’ in the system of private ownership of capital. In other words the Welfare of Society (WoS) operates as ‘function of Interest of Capitalists (IoC)’. We can write it as WoS = f(IoC) ……………. 1The Interest of Capitalists, in turn, depends on their ‘Maximization of Profit (Max o P). So the equation becomes IoC = f(Max o P) ……………. 2The Maximization of Profit (Max o P) by the capitalists results in the ‘Exploitation of Working class’ (EoW). It may written asMax o P = f(EoW) ……………. 3The Exploitation of Working class (EoW) creates ‘Maldistribution of National Income’ (Md o NI). EoW = f(Md o NI) …………….. 4 The degree of maldistribution of national income exposes how the workers are exploited in a country. Generally speaking in most of the countries the top 10% of population enjoys 80% of the national wealth and only just 20% of national wealth is distributed to a vast majority of 90% of population. The maldistribution of national income has always kept the vast majority of people to suffer with low purchasing power and in due course it results in over production. Due to over production the producers are forced to reduce their volume of production and level of employment. On finding the disequilibrium that the goods are not consumed at the rate at which they are produced the producers are forced to close their industries. The very aim of capitalists, the maximization of profit, not only crushes them but also the whole society. Therefore, the private ownership of capital will be dangerous to the whole society and the national capital capital should be equally distributed among the people for the welfare of the mankind. So, Betrand Russel says: “Private ownership of land and capital is not defensible on the groundsof justice or on the grounds that is economical way of producing what the community needs” — Russel, Bertrand : “Political Ideals” (p ; 35) Equally the Marxian theory of “State Ownership of Capital” lacks perfection and threatens human rights. Marxian theory is formed on adamant and inflexible principle and it will not coordinate with the changing world conditions. It preaches a kind of ‘economic fundamentalism’ which wants the elements of society to remain in rigidity for ever. So Loucks rightly states:“Errors in the theoretical of Marxian thought are so serious and so basic that they cannot be corrected by interpreting or modernizing Marx not can they be considered superficial” Loucks : “Comparative Economic Systems” ( p : 166)4. Poverty in the midst of plenty:We, the people of all the countries, have accumulated capital more than enough and the goods that could be produced with the help of that capital is more than adequate to eradicate poverty in the world. The statistics of “World Development Report – 1991” substantiate that if we distribute the goods produced equally among the people of all the countries, each one would receive the goods approximately worth of Rs.300 per day, which is more than enough for one’s needs. But in contrary with this fact, two third of world population is now subjected to appalling poverty and suffering with hunger and various diseases for want of adequate notorious food.The poverty prevails not only between the countries but also within the countries irrespective of whether the country is developed or developing. As there is darkness below the burning candle so is the poverty even in the affluent society due to maldistribution of income and wealth. John Meynard Keynes criticizes the capitalistic system with this ever prevailing paradoxical element of “poverty in the midst of plenty”. Since the capitalism do not know how to distribute income and wealth equally among the people, the capitalists have no moral right or legal right to keep our capital with themselves. They have to honestly return us our capital and we know how to solve our problems under ‘people’s direct ownership of capital’.5.Absence of Right to Live:Throughout the length and breadth of the world we can notice the youth both in rural and urban areas bearing great agony in their eyes, having no value for their education are wandering desperately on the streets in seeking employment. The unemployment has pushed them to strip away their dignity, self respect and equal status among others not only in the society but also in their own family. Everywhere they are treated as insignificant trivial and above all less than a human being. In the economic systems, both in capitalism and socialism, they feel that they have deprived of the possession of ‘Right to Live’ at all.6. Origin of terrorism and economic crimes:It is partly true that unemployment generates economic insecurity among the youth. But by and large it victimizes the youth an easy prey to drug addiction, trafficking, terrorism, and other socio-economic evils.The universal accepted fact is that capitalism cannot solve unemployment. The function of capitalism is such that if we want to adhere with capitalism we have to live with unemployment at certain level. The advocates of capitalism have now proved that full-employment in capitalism is only a myth and mirage. Hence as long as capitalism is prevailing in the world, so long as the socio-economic evils will also be pervading in the world as its by products and they will be deteriorating all the well-nurtured cultural fabrics of society. If we want capitalism, we have to learn to live with terrorism and other socio-economic evils. 7. Economic Equality is a Mirage :It is evident throughout the world, the economic inequality among the people not only within the country but also between the countries is going on widening with an accelerated momentum. In 1982 the per capita income of developed countries in average was 42 times more than that of developing countries like India and China, but the gap was still widening 56 times in 1989. As the gap is going on increasing the poor countries are becoming still poorer and rich countries are more richer. It is natural not only among the people but also among the countries to develop strong feeling of jealousy and hatred, and an impression of inferiority complex and a sentiment of economic slavery. In the complex and confused modern economic systems, the concept and reality of ‘economic equality’ is rushing over beyond the orbit of one’s reach. In this context, our strategic fiscal and monetary policies are reducing to be insignificant to face the challenges. Hence Jawaharlal Nehru rightly blames the capitalistic system of economy for the economic equality: “Normally speaking it may be said that the forces of a capitalist society, if left unchecked, tend to make the rich, the richer and the poor, the poorer, and thus increase the gap between them”- Nehru, Jawaharlal : “The Years of Power” (1960) p;294It would be faulty conclusion that the economic inequality is inseparable function of capitalism alone; even in communist countries we can notice wide economic disparities among the people. Prof.P.T.Baur states:“….. But there are evident wide differences in income in communist countries after decades of communist rule. And in Soviet Union (a country often thought to be dedicated to the removal of economic differences), the differences in income and living standards are quite as pronounced as in some market oriented societies and this after more than half a century of mass coercion”.*-* Baur, P.T. : “The Grail of Equality”The economic equality is one the three basic necessities of ‘Equality, Liberty and Fraternity’ for the establishment of an Ideal Society. But neither capitalism nor communism do not know any effective economic technique to ensure us ‘economic equality’. Hence I venture to say it is futile to allow our capital to remain in possession of some individual capitalists or the State.8. No Right to Work : Invariably the ‘Declaration of Independence’ of all the countries proclaim that man has ‘Right to Live’. On the introduction of ‘Division of Labor’ in the modern production system, no one can produce all the goods that require even to lead a very simple life, or a single whole commodity one needs. On the Division of Labor, everyone is trained to produce only a part of a commodity for which he can receive his wage and with which he has to buy the necessary goods in the market to lead his life. Since a man cannot produce whatever he wants to live, his ‘Right to Live’ solely depends upon his ‘Right to Work’. But no Constitution of any country is powerful enough to provide ‘Right to Work’ as one of the ‘Fundamental Rights’ because the economic systems that the countries pursue are basically defective and incompetent to face the economic challenges. In the absence of ‘Right to Work’ irrespective of what kind of economic system a country follows, the employers never consider man as a man and not even as a commodity. On the other hand they treat man as a ‘rental commodity’ that can be engaged by paying wages as ‘rent’. The defect of economic systems have reduced man and humiliated him as mean and ignoble thing. With full of depression in heart, P.A.Samuelson exhibits the real condition of man as follows:“Since slavery was abolished, human earning power is forbidden by lawto be capitalized. A man is not even free sell himself; he must rent himself at a wage” *-* Samuelson, P.A. : “Economics” (p : 52) 9.Absence of Stable Just Price :Universally in all economic systems – whether it is market oriented economy or State controlled economy – the prices in the market are behaving erratically and disorderly. Especially the prices of consumption goods of poor people are always enhancing. But the income of poor people is not increasing as much as the increment of price of their consumption goods. Consequently this economic phenomenon is horribly crushing the purchasing power of the poor. Hence the fact is universally accepted that ‘the poor people are born in poverty, live in poverty and die in poverty’ Whenever the governments declare that they have contained or reduced the rate of inflation it seems always to the benefit of the rich. The economic systems, existing now, do not know any economic techniques to sustain a just price level at stable for the welfare of the vast majority poor.10. Injustice to Working Class:In Jerusalem I heard the Israeli Supreme Court say : “It is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted than that one innocent person be convicted”.This legal justice should not be confined only to the courts of justice but it should be equally extended to govern both the economic justice and economic systems. The economic systems, on the contrary, conveniently permit the economic criminals to escape from punishment and in turn punish the innocent workers who perform their social duty.The utmost duty of a worker is to produce socially needed goods and services only; but it is not the duty of the worker to bear the responsibility whether the goods and services he produced are sold out. On the other hand it is the duty of the consumers to buy the goods and services that are produced for their consumption at a just price and at the rate at which the goods and services are produced for them.On the contrary, the consumers, as a whole, behave in the market, guided by their erratic psychological factors, create time lags in purchasing the goods that are produced for their consumption and sometimes neglect the goods to buy at all. These negative and duly non-responsive factors affect the economy severely and ultimately result in the stagnation of goods in the markets. Due to the stagnation of goods in the market an equal volume of goods stagnated are not produced in the subsequent round of production. On the reduction of production of goods the workers who have fulfilled ‘the production – duty’ of the economy, have to lose their employment. The unemployment of a worker not only affects his ‘Right to Live’ but also of the whole family that depends on him. The unemployment of a worker ruins the education of his children, their future ambition in life and their morality and social dignity and their future economic security.The present economic systems are not competent and efficient enough to secure and save the “Right to live” of the workers who have honestly accomplished their ‘production-duty’ of the economy.To strengthen my argument I like to quote the words of Prof. Mrs. Joan Robinson : “It is true, with adequate organization there need be no unemployment … There is always something useful that can be done even with a man’s bare hands”**– Prof. Mrs. Joan Robinson : “Economic Philosophy” (p : 114)Joan Robinson too finds fault on the economic systems for wide range of unemployment; in other words, the economic systems that we pursue now are the primary reasons for the failure to provide “Right to Live” to the workers throughout the world. In the present economic systems and economic conditions ‘employment’ and ‘Right to Live’ are synonymous or just the same.What is the basic cause, today, throughout the world, for billions of youth are crushed by the burden of unemployment? It is the cause : “Every person, only up to the standard of education and technical training that the society has offered to him, can produce socially needed goods with his bare hands or with the help of small and simple capital that he can afford by himself and thus create ‘self-employment’ opportunities and secure right to live by himself. The creation of self-employment creates an expectation in the mind of the of the worker that the society i.e. the consumers should behave with a sense of ‘economic responsibility’ by consuming the goods at the rate at which he produces, at a reasonable price to sustain the livelihood of the worker. But every self-employed youth knows that the ‘economic responsibility’ is absolutely lacking in the minds of consumers. What is deeply rooted in the minds of unemployed youth is ‘a fear about the future’ that the consumers or the society that he belongs to would not perpetually and automatically accept the goods at a reasonable price that he produces by ‘self-employment’. The ‘fear about the future’ in the minds of the youth who wants to venture in ‘self-employment’ is reasonably justifiable. Due to ‘fear on the future’ the unemployed youth are not venturing in self-employment competing with the highly sophisticated industries. It is then whose fault if the youth are unemployed? The present economic systems have no economic techniques or ‘action programs’ to evacuate the ‘fear of the future’ in the minds of the unemployed youth and to induce ‘economic responsibility’ in the minds of society to save the ‘self-employed’ youth from the competition of well-organized industries. I have to point out it is the fault of the economic systems for the cause of unemployment and moreover I wish to state that the capitalists and equally the governments should not lay blame on the ‘fate’ of the youth for their unemployment. On the other hand the capitalists and the governments are persistently blame the fate of the youth and try to escape from their ‘economic responsibility’. So we have no other alternative except to forfeit our capital from the them and retain it with ourselves as we know perfectly well how to solve our unemployment and other economic problems.11.Economic Gambles: The basic intention leading for the invention of money is it should be used as a ‘medium of exchange’ in buying and selling goods and services. On the contrary, our present economic systems have invariably paved way for the money not only to be used as a ‘medium of exchange’ but also at a large extent as a ‘Medium of Economic Gambles’ throwing away the honesty and morality of societies to the winds. The multi-millionaires, today, have idly and futilely invested billions and billions of money in the stock markets as a medium of gambles uprooting the very noble function of money. The electronic media and the news papers extensively propagating the stock market indices for the benefit of the rich gamblers, the economic criminals, who want to earn quick and easy money with out shedding even a drop of sweat. The present economic systems have accepted this kind of economic gambles without any shyness.In addition, in the cradles of civilization, especially in the places of sports and games like cricket stadium, Tennis courts, Football grounds, Boxing arenas billions and billions of money are set into circulation as a ‘medium of gambles’. With the help of the ‘capital-power’ the capitalists today have vigorously transformed the noble arts, skillful sports, beautiful games and wonderful cultures into easy-money-earning centers instead of promoting these symbols of civilization. The capitalists in the name of ‘promoters’ have developed strong hatred not only in the minds of ‘players’ but also in the minds of ‘audience’. This kind of economic gambles is now rapidly spreading like dangerous virus in all four corners of the world. For example, the ‘Statesman’ in its 10th October 1978 issue states as follows :“Britain is a gambling nation. Nearly 94 percent of population indulge in an occasional flutter on races, at the gambling tables, on foot-ball pools or on a variety of other sports. 39 percent of all Britons are habitual gamblers. In 1977 an estimated $ 800 million were stated on races and gamblers. In 1977 an estimated $ 800 million were stated on races and other sports”. Instead of producing socially needed goods and services and creating employment opportunities, the capitalists are utilizing ‘our capital’ for economic gambles extensively and demoralizing our long cherished cultures and civilizations throughout the world.The capitalists now adopt a new business strategy to exploit the consumers : ‘First kill the civilization and then sell the goods’. The capitalists know the consumers will become a easy prey for sexual exposition. So they in all their advertisements use ‘women in half naked beauty’ to enchant consumers to buy their commodities. We know the capitalists are misusing ‘our capital’ to ‘sexually assault’ the consumers to maximize their profit at the cost of cultural destruction and spreading demoralization. With deep mental agony I like to state that millions of young women have now turned as prostitutes as a source of employment and the International Labor Organization (ILO) now recommends to accept prostitution as ‘flesh industry’ which contributes reasonable amount of foreign exchange for many countries.12.Class distinction and failure of economic machinery :In lieu of promoting fraternity among the people the present economic systems create various class distinctions such as 1. proletariat and capitalist, 2. consumer and producer, 3. savers and investors. The class distinction between proletariat and capitalist is always underlying at the bottom of strikes, lock outs and innumerable industrial disputes. The class distinction between ‘consumers and producers’ is attributable for the failure of determination of ‘just price’ in the market and for uneven distribution of goods among the people. The class distinction between ‘savers and investors’ is harmfully preventing the requisite acquisition of investment to eradicate poverty and unemployment expeditiously in the world. The present economic systems are full of contradictions without which they can not function. Our capital in the possession of few capitalists and the State is the root cause for all class distinctions. Once the capital comes under the ‘direct ownership of people’ all the class distinctions will disappear13.Maximization of profit destroys morality of society:In the present economic systems the industries project their ‘volume of profit’ as the ‘balance of judgment’ of their determination of ‘industrial success’ The industry which earns more profit is considered to be more successful. The mental attitude forces the capitalists even to destroy the natural environment extensively in order to produce goods cheaply. With the sole aim of maximization of profit, the capitalists have no even an iota of concern over the future welfare

Arizona is listed in the US Constitution as one of the second last states to have been admitted to the United States of America. Some scholars believe its name was derived from Spanish phrase aridi zona, which is literally translated as dry region though there is as yet no consensus over this assertion. It is located in the western side of the United States and is one of the largest states among the “corner states.” It has its headquarters in the city of Phoenix. Some of the neighboring states include Utah, California, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. It shares an international border with Mexico.
Much of the State is either desert or semi desert hence experiencing very dry and cold climate at varying times of the year. The area receives about three hundred millimeters of rainfall every year in two seasons. Monsoon winds, ice drops, lightning and thunderstorms are some of the other features of this state’s climate. Much of the desert area is covered by cactus while the other mountainous area and higher ground is covered with large forest cover. The landscape is characterized by mountains as well as plateaus such as Mogollion Rim. The mountainous nature of this region is said to have originated from volcanic activity in the early years. Among other geographical features that tourists visiting this are will find enchanting include the Grand Canyon, a gorge alongside the Colorado River which also happens to be among the Seven Wonders of the World in natural terms.
Arizona has a population of over six million people as per the estimates provided in 2006. It has a 3.6% rate of growth. The population density is 45 people for every square kilometer. The population consists of white Americans who are the majority, Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans and other inhabitants of mixed race. The state is also noted for having one of the highest concentrations of Native Americans along with Oklahoma and California.
Arizona has one of the largest economies in the US which is heavily dependent on cotton and copper mining. Tourism, shopping and golf are also big economic contributors. Transportation here is made up mainly of intra and interstate buses while trains are also very popular. The aviation industry is greatly developed in the state with up to four major international airports spread out across some of the cities. This makes it easier for visitors to get to the city from any part of the world.
Whether you come to the state for the environment, the attractions, a conference or reunions, it should be pretty easy to find a hotel – especially if you visit Arizona during the low season.

Note: This article was written in 2001

Historical BackgroundThroughout history, the Gulf region has been rife with all kinds of coups, disputes, crises and wars. The overthrow of Mossadeq (1951), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Six Days War (1967), the Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) were some of the crises that marred the region since the Second World War.The Gulf crisis of 1990 was the result of many long-standing disputes between Iraq and Kuwait, besides other causes such as the emergence of Iraq as a great military power after the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam’s ambitions in the absence of democratic ideals in the Arab world and the intra Arab-Gulf relations.When Iraq became independent in 1932, it began to assert territorial claims against Kuwait. Iraq claimed that Kuwait has been under the Ottoman Empire as a district of Basra, and that since Iraq is the successor of the empire, Kuwait naturally becomes a part of Iraq. Before 1990, Iraq had attempted to incorporate Kuwait into Iraq on at least two occasions. The first occurred in the late 1930s when King Ghazi of Iraq made demands to unify Kuwait with Iraq. But that demand soon died down when King Ghazi mysteriously died in an accident on 4 April, 1939.The second occasion occurred in 1961 when Britain and Kuwait formally terminated their relationship under the treaty of January 1899.[1] Iraq, under General Abdul Karim Qasim again made an attempt to incorporate Kuwait into Iraq. On 2 July, 1961, the United Nations Security Council met to discuss the problem. Under paragraph 2, Article 35 of the United Nations, both Iraq and Kuwait submitted their complaint to the UN. The UN Security Council, however, could neither diffuse the crisis nor pass any resolution due to the use of its veto by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union went along with the Iraqi view and stated that, “The Security Council’s most immediate task in this situation is to condemn the actions of the colonial power and to take measures which lead to the immediate withdrawal of United Kingdom troops from Kuwait.”[2] In the absence of any proper agreements in the UN, the Arab League stepped in and came up with an alternative solution to the problem. It accepted Kuwait’s independence and vowed to defend Kuwait against any external threats or aggression. Iraq, however never really accepted Kuwait’s independence.With the passage of time, the dispute simmered down. The outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War almost completely overshadowed the Kuwait-Iraq issue and the matter was laid to an uneasy rest during the war. Although several meetings were held between Kuwait and Iraq, the matter could not be settled and it continued until 2 August, 1990 when the dispute took a completely new turn.In the months preceding the invasion, Saddam made several threatening charges against Kuwait among which are the extraction of Iraqi crude oil by Kuwait in the Rumailah oilfield and Kuwait’s illegal possession of Warba, Bubiyan and Failaka Islands. Saddam accused Kuwait of ‘overproduction’ of oil, which Iraq regarded as “… a kind of war against Iraq.” This overproduction, Saddam claimed, depressed oil prices and raised the revenue of Kuwait which did nothing to help Iraq. He warns Kuwait that its overproduction was “a poison dagger in Iraq’s back,” and that it was “an evil against Iraq… an American plot to deplete Iraq’s oil revenues…” Saddam also threatened to use force “… to put things right… cutting a few throats is better than cutting the means of living.”[3]The CrisisThings finally came to a head after the failed Jeddah meeting of 31 July and 1 August, 1990 between Iraq and Kuwait, when, on 2 August, 1990, 100,000 Iraqi troops and 300 tanks rolled into Kuwait with little resistance. Iraq announced soon after that it would withdraw when the situation stabilises and when the “Free Provisional Government of Kuwait” asks them to withdraw.[4] This announcement proved to be a complete sham because on 28 August 1990, Kuwait was formally annexed to Iraq and declared as the 19th Iraqi province. By 4 November, it was announced that Kuwait “no longer exists and that the world should forget about Kuwait’s independence.”After several resolutions were passed by the UN Security Council condemning the action and imposing sanctions on Iraq, Resolution 678 was finally passed on 29 November 1990 that authorises the coalition forces to “restore international peace and security in the area” by the use of “all necessary means.” The Council, in what it termed a “pause of goodwill” gave Iraq until 15 January 1991 to end its occupation of Kuwait.In the intervening period, many diplomatic efforts for a peaceful resolution to the crisis were undertaken. The Nonaligned Movement (NAM), the League of Arab States, the European Community, France and four permanent members of the Security Council (Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia and Yemen) forwarded their peace plans, but due to lack of international support, no viable solutions could be found. The 9 January 1991 talks between the US Secretary of State, James Baker and Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz did not make any headway either. A last minute effort by the UN Secretary General was also “unfortunately unsuccessful.” As the Secretary General’s efforts yielded no results and as the deadline came to an end, he remarked, “No one, and no nation can, except with a heavy heart – resort to the other ‘necessary means’ implied by the resolution 678 (1990), knowing in advance that tragic and unpredictable consequences can follow.”What followed next was the transformation of “Operation Desert Shield” to “Operation Desert Storm.” From 17 January, for the next six weeks, Iraqi military facilities and other installations were bombed. This had serious effect on Iraqi military strength, for, when the ground offensive began at 4am local time on 24 February 1991; the US-led coalition forces met little resistance and easily succeeded in liberating Kuwait on 27 February 1991.The United Nations and the Gulf CrisisSoon after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Security Council met in an emergency meeting to discuss the matter. The Council, at its 2932 meeting on 2 August 199o adopted Resolution 660. The resolution stated that the Security Council was “alarmed by the invasion of Kuwait… by the military forces of Iraq,” and it “condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait” and demanded that “Iraq withdraw immediately and unconditionally.” This resolution was adopted with 14 votes with one abstention (Yemen). The League of Arab States (LAS), Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), Nonaligned Movement (NAM), Nordic States, Western European Union (WEU), NATO, OPEC, World Bank and ICAO have, in their own terms also condemned the invasion.As Iraq failed to comply with the Security Council Resolution 660, the UN Security Council, on 6 August adopted Resolution 661 which imposes mandatory arms and economic sanctions on Iraq. Iraq, however, calls it “iniquitous and unjust,” “precipitous,” and aimed at starving the Iraqi people.[5] This resolution was adopted with Cuba and Yemen abstaining.Iraq continued to stand defiant and on 7 August 1990 declared its “comprehensive, eternal and inseparable merger” with Kuwait. With no sign of Iraqi withdrawal or compliance with resolutions 660 and 661, Resolution 662 was adopted on 9 August 1990 which declared the annexation of Kuwait “null and void.” Two other resolutions were adopted by the end of the first month of the crisis. On 18 August the Security Council adopted Resolution 664 which demanded the release of foreign nationals held in Iraq. Resolution 665, adopted on 25 August, calls upon member states to cooperate with the exiled Kuwaiti Government and to stop and search all ships travelling to or leaving Iraq.Resolution 666, adopted on 13 September 1990 addressed the humanitarian situation in Iraq. It directed the Sanctions Committee to pay particular attention to “children under 15 years of age, expectant mothers, maternity cases, the sick and the elderly” in the determination of food supplies among the civilian population.The closure of all diplomatic missions in Kuwait by Iraq prompted the Security Council to adopt Resolution 667 on 16 September which expressed the Council’s outrage and its demands for “the immediate release of those foreign nationals as well as all nationals,” and “protect the safety and well-being of diplomatic and consular personnel and premises in Kuwait.”Resolution 669 of 24 September 1990, “entrusts the (Sanctions) Committee… with the task of examining requests for assistance under the provisions of Article 50” of the UN Charter.[6] The very next day, on 25 September, Resolution 670 confirmed that the sanction against Iraq “applies to all means of transport including aircraft.” It called upon member states to impose an air embargo on Iraq and Kuwait.On 29 October 1990, the Council, in its Resolution 674 demands that Iraq “desist from taking any third state nationals hostage” and to stop its mistreatment and oppression of either Kuwaitis or foreign nationals. On 28 November 1990, yet another resolution was adopted by the Council. Resolution 677 condemns the Iraqi attempt to alter the demographic composition of the Kuwait population and the destruction of population records.Iraq’s refusal to comply with any of the Council’s resolutions finally led to the passing of Resolution 678 on 29 November 1990 which authorises the use of “all necessary means” to uphold and implement the resolutions. This resolution was adopted with 12 in favour, 2 against (Cuba and Yemen) and 1 abstention (China). Although the words “the use of force” were not used, it was clearly implied, as the United States maintained. The US said after the voting, “Today’s resolution is very clear. The words authorise the use of force.”[7] The Council gave “Iraq one final opportunity as a pause of goodwill” till 15 January 1991 to comply with the resolutions. This resolution was the first resolution since 27 June 1950 when the Security Council adopted a resolution that authorises the use of force in Korea.What followed was a flurry of diplomatic activities undertaken by different countries and regional organisations. The UN Secretary General Perez de Cuellar’s last-ditch efforts to persuade Iraq to withdraw failed. Then, the dateline of 15 January 1991 expired. On 16 January, nothing happened; like the lull before a storm. Then all hell broke loose on 17 January with allied forces pounding Iraqi positions. The start of air campaigns was reported by the US to the Security Council on the same day.[8] Saddam Hussein announced on Iraq radio that the “Mother of all Battles” had started. On 22 January 1991, the UN Secretary General appealed to Iraq to comply with the Council resolutions. Later on, he urged Iraq to put “this tragic situation on the road to a peaceful solution.”[9] Several private meetings of the Security Council were held during February and March. But these meetings could not yield any fruitful results.On the morning of 24 February 1991, ground offensive started and soon, on 27 February, Kuwait was liberated. On 27 February, Iraq announced that it agreed to comply with the UN Security Council Resolution 660 of 1990 and all other resolutions.[10] Iraq also informed the Security Council of the withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait, while adding that “American and other pro-aggressor forces” are continuing their attack on the withdrawing Iraqi forces.[11] The coalition operations were stopped at midnight 27-28 February 1991. By 4 March 1991, the Kuwaiti Government resumed its functions in Kuwait City.Looking back at Resolution 678, we can find some inconsistencies and discrepancies in its provisions. The wordings of the resolution – “use (of) all necessary means” was too vague in the first place, and this led to a number of interpretations. The US interpreted it as the authorisation of the use of force. It can be said that it was a US victory when the resolution was passed. In a speech before the resolution was put to vote, the US representative to the Security Council said, “If Iraq does not reverse its course peacefully, then other necessary measures, including the use of force, should be authorised.”[12] It can also be seen that the resolution was not in conformity with Chapter 7 of the UN Charter though the resolution stated that it acts “under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.” For instance, Article 42 (under Chapter VII) states that forces may be used only when the economic sanctions are inadequate. Article 46 states that “Plans for the application of armed force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.” These provisions were not followed at all under resolution 678. It did not give enough time for the sanctions to take effect. This was also the Indian view.[13] The resolution also did not mention any Military Staff Committee. Moreover, with the abstention of China from the resolution, it failed to have the required concurrence of the five permanent members.On 27 February 1991, it was President Bush who ordered the ceasefire and who proclaimed ‘victory’. The Secretary General, on 28 February said, “We hope it is the beginning of the end of this terrible tragedy.”On 2 March 1991, resolution 686 was adopted by a vote of 11 in favour, 1 against (Cuba) and 3 abstentions (China, India and Yemen). While reaffirming that all the resolutions adopted before continue to have “full force and effect”, it laid down several preconditions for the ceasefire which Iraq was obliged to immediately implement. It also recognised that during the implementation of resolution 686, the right to use “all necessary measures” under resolution 678 will “remain valid.”Resolution 687 was adopted on 3 April 1991 which finally and formally declared a ceasefire. This resolution was adopted by 12 votes to one (Cuba) with two abstentions (Yemen and Ecuador). Some of the main provisions of the resolution included guarantee of boundary and allocation of islands between Iraq and Kuwait, deployment of a United Nations observer unit to monitor the demilitarised zone, destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons and all ballistic missiles, UN inspection of Iraq’s biological, chemical and missile capabilities, return of all Kuwaiti property seized by Iraq, payment of compensation by Iraq, continuation of sanctions, repatriation of all Kuwaiti and third-country nationals, renouncement of the practice of terrorism and declaration of ceasefire.Iraq called this resolution “unjust” and “iniquitous” and was “an unprecedented assault” on Iraq.[14] But Iraq, having no other choice, had to accept the resolution on 6 April 1991.[15] This resolution was also criticised in the following words: “It was not a negotiated agreement but a unilaterally formulated one, imposed on Iraq. The peace was dictated. The Council exceeded its powers because its Charter nowhere empowers the UN to impose a settlement on parties to a dispute.”[16] With the Iraqi acceptance of the resolution, the ceasefire formally came into effect.Post-War Situation and the UNSoon after the ceasefire, the UN took steps to actively participate in reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts in Iraq and Kuwait. Several UN missions and teams went to Iraq and Kuwait to assess the humanitarian situation there. Their reports highlighted hunger, thirst, disease, desolation, destruction and death. According to one report, 170,000 children under five would die in 1991 because of the war and economic sanctions. It was remarked, “The situation was absurd. While UN and other agencies were struggling with totally inadequate resources to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, another UN body, the Security Council was insisting that Iraq be denied the opportunity to sell its own oil in order to buy food, medicines and other supplies.”[17]A direct effect of the ceasefire resolution, particularly the continuation of sanctions was that “There now began a massive onslaught on the Iraqi civilian population – denied the means to rebuild a totally shattered social and industrial infrastructure, denied uncontaminated drinking water, denied medical facilities, and denied food in adequate quantities. The US policy represented one of the most comprehensive campaigns of biological warfare – denying relief to a diseased and starving people – in modern times.”[18]Some more resolutions were adopted later that year – 688 (5 April); 692 (20 May); 697, 699 and 700 (17 June); 706 and 707 (15 August); 712 (19 September); 713 (25 September); 715 (11 October) – dealing with the post-war situation and reparation in Iraq.In retrospect, it can be said that the Gulf War was not an UN war at all. The UN was marginalised on all occasions. It was the US that ran the whole operation. The US, it seemed, was clearly intent on using force right from the beginning. Even before the invasion of 2 August 1990, the US having knowledge of the threat did not warn the UN and made no efforts to stop it. It never directly negotiated with Iraq after the ‘storm’ nor was the UN asked to act as mediator.[19]When the war finally came, the UN Secretary General remarked that “… the war in the Gulf is not UN war, and the World Body has no control over it… we are informed through the Security Council about military operation but after they have taken place.”[20] He also said, “We cannot consider it as an UN war in the sense that there is no UN flag. They are not in blue UN helmets. There is no UN control over military operations.”Several peace plans came forward from different quarters, even from Iraq. However, none of them could succeed in bringing the war to an end, for; they are rejected by the US. The UN could do nothing. “The Americans had used the Security Council when it suited them, calling it into session again and again when Iraq invaded Kuwait and accepting resolutions critical of Iraq in order to ratify its own condemnation of Iraq. But once the war began, the Americans with enthusiastic British support, did all they could to stop the Security Council playing any part, and when they failed to hold the line, made sure its proceedings were in secret. Perez de Cuellar, who should have been a man at the centre of events, was never consulted and never informed of what was going on.”[21]India and the Gulf CrisisHistorically, there have always been good relations between India and Iraq. Therefore when Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 August 1990, India was in a big dilemma. Neither did India want to offend Saddam Hussein nor did it want to go against the UN. India decided to toe the middle line for sometime by making a statement that, “India was opposed to the use of force in any form of relations between states.”The major policy objective of India under Prime Minister VP Singh was the repatriation of the 170,000-180,000 Indians stranded in Kuwait. From August, Air India started massive airlifting operations and by October, almost 160,000 Indians were returned home. The VP Singh government later denounced the Iraqi invasion and demanded the immediate withdrawal of Iraqi force from Kuwait. However, India did not take any further steps to resolve the crisis. After resolution 661 was adopted, India’s import of crude oil from Iraq stopped. This greatly affected India’s earnings and India had to as the UN for assistance.[22]On November 1990, there was a change of government in India. VP Singh was replaced by Chandrasekhar of Janata (S). The Chandrasekhar government too remained a passive spectator to the Gulf Crisis. There were no active diplomatic efforts on the part of India to diffuse the crisis. However, there were some shifts in the Indian stand now. There was a general impression that India was toeing the US line. India now blamed Saddam Hussein and Iraq for the crisis.Just before the air campaign, the Foreign Minister VC Shukla and the Deputy Foreign Minister Digvijay Singh visited several countries to bring about some solution to the problem, but to no avail. When the war finally came, India maintained a conspicuous silence. The Indian peace proposal fell on deaf ears. The late Rajiv Gandhi also put forward his peae-package while criticising the government for reducing India to a “hapless spectator.” His main focus was on the replacement of the US-led coalition by a UN force and the withdrawal of Iraqi forces.[23]Adding to the confusion was the discourse that US planes were being refuelled at Bombay since 9 January 1991. It caused a great political turmoil in India, when major political parties started to point their fingers at each other. The Congress, the Janata Dal and the left parties severely criticised the government for being an ‘ally’ of the US. The BJP on the other hand, backed the government arguing that India must support the UN and extend all help to the coalition forces.[24]Some analysis pointed out that the government’s decision to permit the refuelling was because of the improved relations between the US and India. Besides, the economic situation in India had forced it to ask an IMF loan of 1.8 billion dollars. Then, three days after the loan was sanctioned, the refuelling started. No one believed that this was a coincidence.[25]Though the government resisted and dogged the salvo of criticisms for some time, the Congress’s threat to withdraw support led the government to stop the refuelling facility provided to the Americans.The Nonaligned Movement also came in for a lot of criticisms for its actions (or more appropriately, inactions). Iraq and Kuwait are both members of the NAM. The first high-level meeting of NAM to discuss the Gulf Crisis was held on 11 September 1990. This meeting was attended by the Indian Foreign Minister IK Gujral. It was announced that NAM would set up a ‘catalyst group’ to bring the crisis to an end.The Belgrade meeting of NAM on 11 February 1991 produced no desired results. But it was decided that they should send a team to both the sides. The team to visit Baghdad on 23 February was to be composed of the Foreign Ministers of India, Cuba, Iran and Yugoslavia. The beginning of the ground war however blew the plan into oblivion. NAM could no longer play any role as the focus was on the UN and the US.India’s role through the war fared no better. When the Iraqi invasion took place, India was not a member of the Security Council; therefore it did not take part in any of the meetings of the UN Security Council and its resolutions. India however expressed its support to the UN. India’s dilemma began only after 1 January 1991 when it became a member of the Security Council. India abstained, along with China and Yemen in the first voting of the first resolution after 678 on 2 March 1991.India voted for the ceasefire resolution (687) after certain clauses were changed with its insistence. India had reservations with some provisions relating to the boundary between Iraq and Kuwait and also with the provisions relating to the destruction of Iraqi nuclear weapons because India had apprehensions that they would have further implications on the Kashmir issue and India’s own nuclear programme.[26]Throughout the war, India was criticised for not playing any decisive role, and seems to be only interested in the repatriation of the stranded Indians in Kuwait and in the continuation of its oil supplies. Besides, India did not take any decisive steps as a regional leader and as an important member of NAM to diffuse the crisis. The provision of refuelling facilities and its subsequent withdrawal also showed India’s indecisiveness and reluctance to play any pro-active role in international politics. It also seems that India’s role “… ended up in solving neither Iraq nor Kuwait and certainly not our own country.”[27]However, to arrive at a balanced assessment of India’s role in the crisis, certain factors must be understood. In the first place, the government in India was a minority government. The Janata (S) had only 68 members out of 473 in the Lok Sabha. The Congress support with 193 members was vital to its survival. Thus, it was unable to act decisively. The subsequent shift in India’s foreign policy towards the US-led coalition should also be seen in the light of the economic situation in India. This shift may also have been caused by certain elements within the government that are pro-US. Moreover, India, through NAM could not act because of the attitudes of the coalition force under the US as well as that of Saddam Hussein.Post-War Developments (up to 2001): a chronology1992: The UN Security Council resolutions 706 and 712 (1991) had allowed Iraq to sell petroleum worth up to 1,600 million dollars over a six months period, the revenue from which was to be controlled by the UN. Iraq in 1992 rejected the terms of the resolutions and withdrew from all negotiations on this issue. Resolution 778 was adopted on 2 October 1992 to put pressure on Iraq to accept resolutions 706 and 712. Iraqi request to lift sanctions was rejected. 1993: In 1993, UN weapons inspectors arrived in Iraq. Another team abruptly left Iraq after Iraq refused the setting up of surveillance equipments at its missile testing locations. For the rest of the year, talks between the UN and Iraq remained inconclusive.1994: In March 1994, another Iraqi request to lift sanctions was again rejected. With this, a division within the Council emerged. Russia, France and China are in favour of lifting the sanctions. On October, in an apparent move to draw attention to its plight, Iraq moved its forces towards Kuwait. Iraq announced later that it would withdraw. Prompted by this, the Council on 10 October passed resolution 949 that warns Iraq to desist from using its forces against its neighbours or the UN. By December, it was announced by the head of UNSCOM that he believed Iraq no longer have any nuclear or ballistic weapons.1995: In 1995, another resolution (986) was adopted that was aimed at the partial resumption of exports of Iraqi oil. In the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the UN held at New York during 22-24 October 1995, the Iraqi Vice President Tariq Aziz said, “unipolarism” led to “hasty application of… sanctions and the use of armed force.” This has “deprived… people of their basic human rights…” and led to “the death of thousands of children, women and the elderly due to lack of food and medication.”[28]1996: In early January 1996, Iraq indicated its willingness to enter into a dialogue on a ‘oil-for-food’ agreement with the UN. After several rounds of talks, it was finally agreed that up to 4000 million dollars worth of Iraqi oil would be sold a year to purchase food and medicine. On 27 March, the Council adopted resolution 1051 that established a system to monitor all exports to Iraq that could be used for the production of weapons of mass destruction. This was apparently prompted by the announcement made by the head of UNSCOM Rolf Ekeus that Iraq was in possession of missiles and biological weapons.1997: After the deliberate violation of the air exclusion zone by Iraq in April and the subsequent remark of the US president that Saddam is the biggest threat and the refusal of Iraq to allow arms inspectors to work, the Council passed yet another resolution (1115) on 21 June 1997, warning Iraq that more sanctions may come. In October, the Revolutionary Command Council criticised the high proportion of Americans in UNSCOM. Resolution 1137 was adopted that warned Iraq to stop expelling US personnel. In December, Iraq suspended oil exports.1998: Oil exports from Iraq resumed in January. Security Council resolution 1153 adopted on 20 February doubled the six-monthly income permitted to the Iraqi government to 5200 million dollars. Resolution 1175 of June continued the distribution plan of humanitarian supplies. Iraq was also permitted to improve its oil productions. Just when it seems that things will get better, the ‘discovery’ of VX spoilt it all. In December, the US and UK launched attacks on Iraq. This elicited widespread demonstrations across the Middle East.1999: In January, after the French proposal of replacement of UNSCOM was opposed by the US, Iraq voted in parliament renouncing all previous commitments made to the Security Council. In March, reports came that the CIA has been using UNSCOM as a cover for operations in Iraq. New demands were made for the replacement of UNSCOM by a new system of monitoring. In December, the Council adopted Resolution 1284 that replaced UNSCOM by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) which was charged with monitoring Iraq.2000: In January, the IAEA inspectors went into Iraq. The sanctions imposed on Iraq had a deep impact on the civilian population. In February, the ICRC reported that infant mortality had trebled since 1990, and water supplies had deteriorated. Air strikes still continued.[29]2001: In mid-January, the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, to mark the 10th anniversary of the Gulf War stated, “Kuwait deserved invasion” and warned that Baghdad would fight back if the US continued its anti-Iraq policy under the new US President George W. Bush.[30] On 16 February, about two dozen US and British warplanes bombed five “military targets” in and around Baghdad in the biggest strike against Iraq since 1998. In response, Iraq announced that “… their aggression will achieve nothing but failure.”[31] This strike came under criticisms from China, Russia, France, India, Egypt, Syria, Canada and Turkey who felt that the US and Britain had overstepped their line. They agreed that strikes must be sanctioned by the Security Council.Prime Minister AB Vajpayee slams the US for its air raid and said that India was in favour of lifting sanctions, and that the no-fly zones “do not come within the framework of the UN Security Council resolutions.”[32]Again on 22 February, US warplanes strike Iraqi’s air-defence targets in northern Iraq. These strikes were followed by large demonstrations with the demonstrators calling for jihad.ConclusionAs the current process of sanctions, strikes, inspection, verification and the likes continue, it is very likely that Iraq could use it in his own favour. Using the “sympathy strategy”, Iraq can get oil deals from France, Russia and China. Moreover, with more frequent attacks on Iraq, more Gulf War allies are now siding with Iraq, Egypt and Syria had already signed trade agreements with Iraq. Even within the Security Council, the crack has become more vocal in their criticism of the embargo imposed on Iraq. The Iraqi people do not have much of a choice except to rally behind Saddam Hussein.[33]However, the US and UK are still very firm in their commitment to contain Saddam Hussein who had been labelled by them as the most dangerous man in the world. On the other hand, Iraq is determined to stay defiant. Iraq now asserts that UN arms inspectors will never be allowed back into the country.[34] Meanwhile, the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan exhorted the Security Council to find a common ground on Iraq.It is now very important that both the sides change their attitude before talking about peace. To assure any lasting peace, it is imperative to strike at the roots of instability. For this, the Persian Gulf countries need to be well integrated, embark on confidence building measures, create regional alliance and common security and build up non-offensive defence.[35]Even after ten years, the crisis in the Gulf is still to be solved. One is left to wonder when it will be. For the moment, however, the end of the crisis is nowhere in sight.June 2001END NOTES[1] Agreement between the British government and the Sheikh of Kuwait regarding the non-reception of foreign representatives and non-cession of territory to foreign powers or subjects, 23 January 1899 in Lauterpacht et al (eds) The Kuwait Crisis: Basic Documents (1991)[2] Security Council Official Records (SCOR), sixteenth year, 958th meeting, 5 July 1961, paras 55, 65[3] Iraq TV, 8pm (IST), 17 July 1990. Quoted in Gazi Ibdewi Abdulghafour, The Tragedy: Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait. Genesis, Consequences and Conflict Resolution (New Delhi: Lancers Books, 1993) p. 67[4] S/PV, 2932, 2 August 1990[5] UN Document S/20503, 13 August 1990[6]  Article 50 of the UN Charter states, “If preventive or enforcement measures against any State are taken by the Security Council, any other state, whether a member of the United Nations or not, which finds itself confronted with special economic problems arising from the carrying out of these measures shall have the right to consult the Security Council with regard to solution of the problems.”[7] S/PV, 2963, 29 November 1990[8]  UN Document S/22090, 17 January 1991[9]  UN Document S/22172, 30 January 1991[10]  UN Document S/22275 and S/22276, 27 February 1991[11]  UN Document S/22274, 27 February 1991 and S/22288, 28 February 1991[12] UN Document S/PV 2963, 29 November 1990[13] JK Baral and JN Mahanty, “India and the Gulf Crisis: The Response of a Minority Government,” Pacific Affairs, Vol. 65, No. 3, Fall 1992, pp. 368-84.[14] UN Document S/22496, 6 April 1991[15] UN Document S/22480, 11 April 1991[16] Gazi Ibdewi Abdulghafour, The Tragedy, p. 139[17] Geoff Simons, The Scourging of Iraq: Sanctions, Law and National Justice,( Basingstoke; Macmillan, 2nd Edition, 1998) p. 52[18] Geoff Simons, Iraq-Primus Inter Pariahs: A Crisis Chronology, 1997-1998 (Basingstoke; Macmillan, 1999) p. 54[19] Pierre Salinger, “The United States, The nited Nations and the Gulf War,” Middle East Journal, Vol. 49, No. 4, Autumn 1995, pp. 593-613[20] UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar in an interview to PTI-TV, 5 February 1991[21] John Bulloch and Harvey Morris, Saddam’s War: The Origins of the Kuwait Conflict and the International Response (London; Faber and Faber, 1991) p. 200[22] UN Document  S/21711, 5 September 1990[23] The Times of India (New Delhi), 21 January 1991.[24] JK Banal and JN Mohanty, “India and the Gulf Crisis,” p. 374-75[25] Ibid. p. 377[26] Ibid. p. 383[27] Deccan Herald, 19 April 1991[28] Address by Taha M. Marouf, Iraq Vice President in UN at 50: Statements by World Leaders, New York, 22-24 October 1995 (NY;UN, 1996)[29] Middle East and North Africa 2001 (London, Europa Publications 2000, 47th Edition 2001, 2000) pp. 578-599[30] Hindustan Times, (New Delhi) 16 January 2001[31] Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 17 February 2001[32] Times of India (New Delhi), 18 February 2001[33] Times of India (New Delhi) 21 February 2001.[34] Hindustan Times (New Delhi), 28 February 2001[35] Farah Naaz, “Security in the Persian Gulf,” Strategic Analysis, Vol. XXIV, No. 12, March 2001, pp. 2257-2271

The western coast of America is an enthralling and mysterious part of America which has both foreign and
domestic travelers wanting to spend time camping in the out doors. This is not surprising as the outdoors and
camping grounds in WA State are a great place to spend ones vacations in the summer. The landscapes in the
camping areas in WA State are of different types, you could choose to spend your time either in the forests, or deserts or on the beach. There are 120 parks in this state where campers could participate in many different
kinds of activities like rock climbing, windsurfing, boating, biking, hiking, during the summer, and
snowshoeing, snowmobiling and cross country skiing in the inter season.
How to go about selecting a camping spot
Before you decide on where to go for your camping trip you would have to do a bit of research and see which
would be a most suitable place for you to go camping. One way of doing this is to do some research on the
internet and see the various options you have to camp in Washington State. Another way is to talk to friends
who have already done a bit of camping and can give you good advice on this and could refer you to some great
outdoor camping spots.
Some attractive camping areas in WA State
Alta Lake State Park in WA State is one of the most interesting camping grounds. The 181 acre camping area has
the pine forest mountains touching the desert areas. Also during the summer fishing enthusiasts can go trout
fishing in the Lake. Apart from Lake Alta there is Lake Chelan which is just about 30 minutes away, so you have the option of enjoying activities related to the water in more than one place. However, open fires are not
permitted in this area because of the risk of fires in the forest area, but the campers could use gas stoves
for camping or barbecues on gas burners for making their meal while camping.
While camping at Alta Lake State Park, you could also enjoy a 2 mile walk on the hiking trails. Apart from this there are a lot of water sports and activities which you could participate in like water skiing, swimming,
fishing, boating, bird watching, sail boarding and also have a round of golf. You could also enjoy a family
picnic here because there are shelters where you could do your cooking and tables to sit around.
Camano Island State Park in WA State is one more interesting camping ground. The natural features here are the
beach and a six thousand foot rocky shoreline which this 134 acre camping area covers. The scenic beauty is
also breath taking and the view of the mountains nearby is quite enthralling. You can also if you want harvest
a lot of shell fish here. Here again you can indulge in many activities like crabbing, clamming, sail boarding,fishing, diving, boating, and also biking, or hiking around the camp area. This is a camp ground where you can stay on for weeks and not get bored because there is so much to do.