Modi’s Charismas Visit: A New Level of Indo-Pak Diplomacy

The Modi’s surprised landing in the Lahore on this years Charismas day is a remarkable gesture in the recent past in the bilateral relations between the India and the Pakistan. It is pertinent to mention that the Indian Prime Minister had on two day summit level meeting in the Moscow from 24^th to 25^th December and thereafter, on the same day he inaugurated the Indian made Parliament at Kabul for Afghanistan.

The Modi’s surprised visit is full of secret diplomacy. It has always been noticed in the diplomacy that keeping the backchannels active is more fruitful than reaching openly in the areas of hard contestation. The ‘secrecy’ becomes more substantive when it is done between a pro-rhetoric media glaring. Though, it is hard to digest that the Modi’s arrival in the Pakistan would not have been pre-prepared. But nevertheless, if it is to be surprised, it may be a beginning of new era in the bilateral engagements.  

The two countries have recently agreed to resume a new level of ‘Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue’, earlier known as ‘Composite Dialogue’ which involves all the bilateral issues included contested issue of Kashmir. The comprehensive bilateral dialogue is a good beginning since there was a huge pessimism emerged from the Ufa meeting in the Russia in July 2015, which ended without signaling any direct talk over the issue of Kashmir.  

The Modi’s surprised visit has both philosophical and pragmatic dimension. From philosophical point of view, Modi is well equipped in giving diplomatic surprises. Earlier to it, he invited the Pakistan’s Prime Minister at his swearing-in-ceremony in the May 2014, which had not been seen in the Indo-Pak bilateral relations. Reaching the Pakistan in such a manner, Modi might be trying to send a massage from London to Washington that India believes in peace and diplomacy.

On the other side, the visit has some pragmatic dimension as well. Not-to-engage is not a good option between the two nuclear powers. The bilateral hostile relations are at the many costs in the two countries as well as for the whole South Asian region. Modi would be aware of his economic and strategic cost of an anti-Pakistan policy.

The two countries inhabit millions of poor, malnourished, and internally dislocated people due to unabated tensions particularly along the border areas between the two countries. It is well-written and accentuated truth that the South Asian region would not see the light of real prosperity and development until and unless the New Delhi and the Islamabad reconcile on all the outstanding bilateral issues included the most sensitive issue of Kashmir.

Some recent reports have revealed that both the India and the Pakistan are pursuing a sort new weapon race, which could be very dangerous particularly in a situation of bilateral hostility. Therefore, bilateral engagement and reaching each other is an indispensable option between the Indian and the Pakistan. There is no other way to address the bilateral issues other than dialogue especially when the two contestants are nuclear powers.

Book Review

Name of the Book       : Strange Rebels: 1979 and the Birth of the Twenty First Century

Author                         : Christian Caryl

Publisher                      : Basic Books, New York, 2013

Pages                           : 407   

A study of any new text is per se an interesting experience in the discourses of literature. It becomes more lucrative and extrapolates once a book is of contemporary relevance. The same is true with the Christian Caryl’s book Strange Rebels: 1979 and the Birth of the Twenty First Century. The fundamental sense of the Caryl’s book would be based on the argument that the twenty first century is born in 1979 which per see is premised on the fact that the existing ideological narratives and the “accelerative trust” on account of social, economic and geo-political, to which the todays world is engulfed in are directly or indirectly linked with the developments that took place during the year 1979.  

The author narrates the dying days of the 1978 and the beginning of the 1979 when two significant events took place in the two different socio-ideological composed societies quite far from each other. The first is about emergence of Deng Xiaoping in China who changed the Mao’s narrative of socio-economic development and put the China on new road whose main attributes were off ‘special economic zones’. The Deng’s liberalization of Chinese economy, though in Chinese context and ‘hide the capabilities’ made it a vibrant economic and political power in the twenty first century. A far away place from Beijing is London where in May 1979 elections put Margaret Thatcher as a new Prime Minister of the Great Britain. The Thatcher’s win was not important because she was a first women Prime Minister rather a significant aspect about it was what latter on came to known as “Thatcherism”. This new “ism” was based on restoration of a faith on the Adam Smith’s philosophy of market. The Deng and Thatcher’s emergence had common parlance in context of their full faith in the “values of entrepreneurship” with bit difference of degree.

The other dimension of the Caryl’s book is based on religion as a predetermining factor to the developments that took place during the 1970’s. The emergence of Iran as an Islamic Republic in 1979 redeveloped the quest for a sort of Pan-Islamism in the world particularly in the region of West Asia. The Iranian revolution is off multidimensional but one deconstruction of it would be based on a narrative that it questioned the US hegemony in the region and in its beyond. The other development was a new elected pope John Paul II who was not only non-Italian but also one of the staunch critiques of Soviet Communism.

These two developments one based on economy and other on religion in 1970’s not only altered the whole discourse but lashed on socio-political-cum-geostrategic dimensions of that era which eventually gave birth to present century in terms of its issues and developments.

The post Soviet intervention in the Afghanistan saw a repetition of religion as a reliable tool to confront geo-strategic challenges. The norm started by the pope John Paul II had vibrantly configured by the Western world headed by the United States particularly during the last days of the Cold war. The modern jihadism and AK47 was also invented during these days, which subsequently became a sort of convention for big powers to achieve their geo-political interests particularly in the third world countries.

The fall of Shah regime in the Iran put a significant strains in the US policy in the West Asian region and in its beyond. The Iran under Shah was a key alley to the US during the Cold War. The Iranian revolution put end to this alliance between the US and the Iran that subsequently gave birth to the present animosities and confrontation between the two countries. The Iran-Iraq war in 1980’s and some sectarian and ethnic conflicts prominently the Arab-Persian division on the basis of Shia-Sunni narrative gave birth to many proxies in the region to which the present Iran-Saudi Arabia cold War, ISIL, war in Yemen and Syria are the associated outcomes of the events celebrated in the 1970’s.

The Iranian revolution also created a sort of power vacuum in the West Asian region which also gave opportunity to the ex-Soviet Union to fish in the troubled waters of the region. A one fundamental sense of the US foreign Policy in the post cold war era has been around to put away Russian influence particularly in the two critical regions of West Asia and the Central Asia. The present Moscow-Washington confrontation from Syria to Ukraine are also some how linked to the developments of the decade of 1970’s.

Other than religious based conflicts, the environmental and the economic crisis are other critical areas of concern to the present world. The economic policies in the post ‘Thatcherism’ put excessive thrust on account of ‘market is rationale’, therefore, less role of state, private entrepreneurship, and over utilization of fossil fuels. The economic recession of 2008 engulfed the whole world is a product of same rationale. The emission of more greenhouse gases due to overutilization of fossil fuels and electronic gadgets are associated norms of modern life whose roots can be drawn from the same events of 1970’s. The Deng’s rationale of development makes today the China one of the leading polluter in the world. The “twin forces” of religion and market emerged in the 1970’s are substantively responsible factors to the present worries from Syria-Ukraine to economic recession and environment. Therefore, the Cayyl’s book is worth reading in order to understand the substantive perspective of the present challenges to which the world is confronted with.    

Vienna Triumph: A Herald of New Epochal Shift in World Politics

(Published by the Manglam, A Peer Reviewed Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, Allahabad India, August 2015)

Abstract:

The Iranian Revolution of 1979 heralded an epochal shift in world politics due to its far reaching implications from Hindukush Mountains to the Mediterranean Sea. The Revolution did not put only the Tehran and the Washington on opposing fronts but, also started a regional based rivalry between the Saudi Arabia and the Iran. These bilateral rivalries gave birth to the different nuisances to which the West Asian region and world at large is confronted with. The present ISIL is one accentuate offspring of these rivalries. Now, the historical nuclear agreement between the Iran and the P5+1 at Vienna may prove a second epochal ship which would help to resolve all the geo-political issues in the West Asian region and in its beyond.  

Key Words:

(Iran-US Nuclear Deal, Epochal Shift, Iranian Revolution, Axis of Evil, Islamic Republic, IAEA, West Asia)      

There are two broad ways to deconstruct the recent Iran-US nuclear agreement concluded at Vienna, Austria. One from the realist point of view, the agreement is product of the national interest of both the Tehran and the Washington, the main contestant of the Iranian nuclear programme with other four permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany and the European Union. The Washington compromised on its earlier stand on the premises that in the long run, the Tehran cooperation would be indispensable in settling the geo-political issues from Hindhukush Mountains to Mediterranean Sea and particularly the cooperation would be more critical vis-à-vis ISIL threat in the region.[i] One more calculation in the Washington is based on the fact that the agreement would allow the international inspection of the Iranian nuclear installations, thereby, would substantiate non-proliferation efforts and it would also strengthen the Israeli’s security. Therefore, not listening to the neoconservative sections of the Israel-US lobby in the Washington, who were looking for military solution to the Iranian nuclear programme, the Washington found diplomacy more profitable than military strike.

On the other side the Tehran would be very much pleased as the agreement would end the international sanctions on its crippling economy.  The agreement would not only bring economic opportunities to eighty million Iranian but it would also yield high economic dividends to some European powers and to the US as well. The Germany would sell more cars in the Iranian market which some estimates is tantamount to $10 billion. It would provide Iran oil deal worth of $100 billion and the US based Apple company would also get huge economic advantages.[ii] Moreover, the Tehran would be more pleased as the agreement would recognize the Tehran’s persistent argument that pursuing nuclear programme for peaceful purposes is his natural right. Therefore, for Tehran the deal is very much sellable to its domestic audiences.

The second way of deconstruction to the agreement would be based on the liberal perspective argument that diplomacy and the institutional based resolution of the conflicts are still viable ways in dealing with the inter-state conflicts. The diplomatic triumph at the Vienna over the Iranian nuclear issue may set an exemplary precedence for other conflicts in the West Asia region, Korean Peninsula and in its beyond. The agreement may unveil a new era in world politics characterized with “institutional-cum-diplomatic” based resolutions to the conflicts rather than “preemptive strike” doctrine and “unilateralism” reinvented under the Bush regimes. 

1979 and birth of strangeness:      

The 1979 Iranian revolution was one of the attributes of the ‘epochal shift’ in the world power as outlined by the Christian Caryl in the “Strange Rebels: 1979 and the Birth of the 21^st Century”. The author argued that the Islamic revolution became one of the factors which ushered a new era in the world history and shaped its discourses to which the today’s world is living with. The other dominant factors to the author were Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and emergence of four leaders’ viz. Ayatollah Khomeini, Deng Xiaoping, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.[iii]

The Iranian revolution of 1979 brought the Tehran and the Washington on conflicting lines on some tricky issues pertaining to the West Asian region and in its beyond. The Tehran-Washington conflict is premised on several narratives. To some scholars the bottom-line of the conflict is rooted in the Persian civilization which West considers a threat to its values and their model of liberal democracy. After the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979, which changed the Washington nurtured status quo in the Persian Gulf, the baseline of US foreign policy in the oil rich Middle East has been evolved around anti Iranian policies and amity with Saudi Arabia.[iv]  

The Washington-Tehran animosity has deep roots and the events in the post Second World War brought two countries on opposite sides on the international issues. The CIA with British intelligence move that toppled the nationalist government of Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and latter US reinstalled the Shah-Reza Pahlavi as Iranian head of state. Mr. Mossadegh had earlier intended to nationalize the Iranian oil which was against western oil interests in the Middle East.[v] The bilateral relationship got further deteriorated after the US backed Iraq invasion on Iran which casted about one million deaths. Iran has also been accused for supporting some anti Israel elements in the region viz. Hezbollah, Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood.

These militant groups are fundamentally anti Israel and anti US in the region. Iran’s support to these groups caused ex US President Bush to label Iran as ‘axis of evil’ in 2002. The former president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made certain rough policies against Israel and some severe statements against the Bush administration in Washington by calling Bush as ‘great Satan (evil) on earth’ made significant strains in the Iran-US bilateral relations.[vi] The main objective of US strategies in the region is to prevent Iran from expanding its influence in the region for which Saudi’s alignment was necessary.

  Russian Angle:

The Russian intelligence in the year 2008 had reports that Washington and Tell Evi are in preparation for military strike over the Iran. After Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s hard tone at the United Nations General Assembly over the Israel, there was general feeling that the strike is inevitable. The Iranian President in his speech said that “state of Israel is in terminal decline and that eclipse of the American empire is on the horizon”.[vii]

The invasion of the Russia over the Georgia in the year 2008 is also in this background. The Russian envoy to the NATO in the September 2008 said that the Russia had intelligence inputs about the probable US-Israel strike over the Iran and it would be carried from the Georgian airfields. The strike from the Georgia would have been easier, as they just have to cross the Caspian Sea to reach Iran. The subsequent Russian moment over the Abkhazia and South Ossetia was to ensure that the US would think before striking the Iran. This was not only reason which stopped US from attacking Iran. The 2008 economic recession would have been another roadblock.[viii] 

Since the Iranian revolution no American president tried to reach out to Iran’s state psychology, which is based on civilizational pride and past glory. Iran was always willing to get engage with the US leadership provided they take the Tehran with full respect and recognize its regional role. The Iran had always talked about the fact that the Washington should learn to deal with Iran on “principles of equality and respect”. Besides this the Tehran had perception that for any successful Iran-US cooperation would be impossible without an unambiguous US policy on some sensitive concerns. The US has to recognize the fact that Israel-Arab lobby against the Iran is not based on true perception and is partisan in nature.[ix] Therefore, the US has to liberate itself from these lobbies before coming for dialogue with the Iran. Moreover, the Washington has to recognize significance of the Iran in the West Asian on the lines of geo-strategic parameters.

The incumbent US president Obama was first American president in recent years who reached to the Iranian people and state in substantive terms. After becoming the US president in 2009, he while addressing the Iran referred it as the “Islamic Republic” and he recognized the legitimacy of the Iranian Islamic revolution of 1979. The Obama regime in the Washington started to reconcile with the Iranian counterparts by way of throwing away the “regime change” policy of neoconservatives during the Bush era.[x] The Obama noted that “my administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the US-Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect”.[xi] This was a accentuated shift from “axis of evil” to “Islamic republic” in the US policy vis-à-vis Iran.        

Over the last few years the Iran-US cooperation becomes more critical over the issue of regional tensions from Iraq to Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Gaza. It is well recognized fact that the Iran wields high influence over the Syrian regime under Busher-al Assad and Syria is its strategic alley and both are being cooperating in the region over many years now. Earlier the Syria had been facilitating Tehran’s clandestine support to Hezbollah into Bekka Valley across the border in Lebanon. The Iranian influence in Lebanon through Hezbollah is well established and it has been supporting the Hamas for many years against the Israel occupation in Palestine. Therefore, the nuclear agreement between the US and the Iran would have “strategic consequences” as it would help in reconciliation and resolution to a turbulent region stretching from ‘Hindukush Mountains to the Mediterranean Sea’.[xii]    

Nuclear Issue:

Nuclear issue is the latest irritant in Iran-US relations. Iran is signatory to NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty) and as per the provisions of the treaty Iran has a right to pursue peaceful nuclear programme. But the western powers headed by the US do not agree to the Iranian point. The US blames Iran that Tehran is enriching its uranium production in order to convert it into nuclear bomb which Iran has denied since its inception.

The US is apprehensive about the security in the Middle East and particularly about Israel security. They believe that if Iran gets bomb it will be an annihilating threat to Israel existence and it will destabilize the balance of power in the region. But there is counter argument by Kenneth Waltz, an eminent scholar of international relations, that if Iran gets bomb it will stabilize the middle east region than destabilize, he made this argument in his article ‘why Iran wants to get bomb’ published in foreign Affairs.[xiii] There is a paradoxical situation in the region. Israel is not signatory to NPT and it is a nuclear weaponry state while as Iran is signatory to this treaty but it has been denied even to pursue peaceful nuclear programme.

 The dispute between the US and the Iran over the nuclear issue accelerated after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in September 2005 declared that the Iran is in “breach of its safeguard obligations”. The IAEA latter in February 2006 further noticed about the Iran’s clandestine nuclear programme. The issue got exacerbated after Tehran disclosed to the IAEA about its unsolicited document received from the A. Q. Khan network in 1987 about the casting of uranium in hemispherical shape and the US intelligence report about Iran’s research on a nuclear capable missile and on uranium conversion.[xiv]  

The Israel lobby and the neoconservative Bush regime in the Washington took no time to put harsh unilateral sanctions over the Iran. The US congress also maneuvered the Iran counterproliferation act to target the countries especially Russia for cooperating with Tehran in nuclear field. From 2005 onwards the Bush regime consolidated the economic sanctions over Iran which crippled its economy over the years.

Iran-SA Cold War:

Another narrative to the incongruence of Iran-US policies in the Middle-East region is based on the Iran-Saudi rivalry which too incepted in the aftermath of the Islamic revolution. The Iran and the Saudi Arabia have been historically on odd sides’ vis-à-vis any geo-political and geo-economical discourses in the region are concerned. The Riyadh considered Iranian Islamic revolution threat not only to its undemocratic regime but also from the point of view that the Iran would try to substantiate Shiite based proxies to dominate the region. Over the years there is a sense of understanding in the Riyadh that Tehran is supporting groups like Hezbollah, Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood in order to substantiate its hold over the West Asia region.[xv]

The relation between Saudi and Iran has gone through many phases from strategic alliance in pre Iranian revolution to cold war in the post Iranian revolution. The Saudi represents Arab world while as Iran represents Persian and both accuse each other for nurturing their dominance in the region. Saudi which represents the sunni sect believe that Iran is trying to export its revolution in the other parts of the region which goes against its core interest as it may lead towards Shiite dominance in the region. The United States is using this sectarian and ethnic card to maneuver its interest in the oil rich region which the Arab and Persian world have failed to understand.[xvi]         

Over the years a cold-war like situation has emerged between the Riyadh and the Tehran. Both the countries are playing proxies against each other that over the years have substantiated the crisis to which the whole region is presently engulfed-in.[xvii] Some are interpreting Riyadh-Tehran rivalry is product of US hatched conspiracy in the region. There is one narrative that the ISIL is CIA proxy which has also a tacit understanding with the Israeli agencies. Therefore, the present crisis in the West Asia region from Syria, Yemen to the ISIL threat have some roots in the Iranian 1979 revolution and the asymmetrical policies, thereafter, pursued  by the Washington and the Tehran one side and the Iran-Riyadh another side.  

The Washington based Israel lobby always derailed any thaw between the Iran and the US. The Arab oil lobby also hampered any reconciliation between the two countries on the ground that such reconciliation would legitimate Tehran as strong “contender for preeminence in the hierarchy of the Arab-Islamic world”. These lobbies would continue to sabotage any closer cooperation between the Iran and the US.[xviii]      

 One of the Republican candidates for 2016 presidential election Gov. Walker has recently remarked that “we need to terminate the deal with Iran on the very first day in office”.[xix] Just after the deal the Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini noted that the Tehran would not change its policy both at international and regional level. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while reacting on the deal said that the “deal is not only threat to the Israel but to the whole world” and it is “stunning historical mistake”.[xx]     

Some scholars believe that the nuclear agreement may bring more destabilization in the region as Saudis may not be fit in the Iranian based geopolitical presentation. The deal may infuriate consequently bring Riyadh and Israel on same side to make the region more volatile. On the other side there is possibility of joint Iran-US action in Iraq against the ISIS and may deepen their cooperation beyond the Iraq border or US may use only Iran militarily to stop the resurgence of ISIL as President Obama in his last address on foreign policy at West Point Military Academy did pointed out that US itself will not indulge in any unilateral military strike beyond its borders.

  Heralding New Era

The nuclear agreement may unveil a new era of cooperation between the US and Iran which may help to resolve the regional crisis amicably and diplomatically. The agreement may also be an exemplary to other such conflicts such as North Korean nuclear issue and it would prove productive in making the West Asia a free nuclear weapons zone. Instead of this pessimistic analysis the fact cannot be denied that the deal is per se an ‘epochal shift’ in the West Asian politics and in the world politics as well.

            The deal may help more to the European powers than the US and the Iran. The two countries are still living in historical mistrust and old nurtured suspicion over each other and it cannot be removed overnight. Majority of the Americans still don’t trust the Iranians and the Iran is not far away from the “regime change” perception. The European powers like Germany would be benefited two ways. One the deal would allow the European powers to do business with the Iran and earn avail economic opportunities available in the Iranian market. From the other side the European states would assert independent foreign policy from the American counterpart.[xxi]

            The Israeli apprehension on the nuclear agreement, which per se is based on two propositions. One, that the agreement would allow Iran to substantiate its nuclear programme which resultantly, can give atomic bomb to Iran. Another apprehension of the Israel is about the fact that end of economic sanction over Iran would yield economic advantages which could be diverted for Iran proxies in the region. Majority of the experts disagree with both of the Israeli arguments rather there is consensus that the deal would substantiate Israeli security as the Iranian nuclear programme would now come under IAEA scrutiny which earlier was not available and Israel would concentrate on other security issues and threats in the region.[xxii]      

            Idealistically, the new shift may change the geopolitical landscape of not only the West Asian region but of whole world. If the United States succeeded in persuading the two vehement critics of US-Iran nuclear agreement- Israel and Saudi Arabia, on the premises that the deal would not compromise their national interest and would not jeopardize the regional security, rather it would help in overcoming the present chaos, then there is likelihood of real “epochal ship” in world politics which would be very benign. This idealistic deconstruction is unlikely keeping in view the geo-political dynamism of the West Asian region and the rival power bargaining between the big powers and the regional ones. But, the fact of the matter is that the deal per se is a “epochal shift”.

---

[i] Aneja Atul, “Towards Defusing Tension in West Asia”, The Hindu, 2 June, 2009.

[ii] Geranmayel Ellie, “Europe’s Edge: By Engaging With Iran, Europe can assert its Power ”, Foreign Affairs, Online Edition, Accessed on 19 July, 2015.

[iii] Caryl Christian, Strange Rebels: 1979 and the Birth of the Twenty First Century (New York: Basic Books, 2014).

[iv] Bhaderkumar M., “Obama Breaks Middle Eastern Taboos”, The Hindu, 26 May, 2009.

[v] Bhadrakumar M., “Beijing Cautions US over Iran”, The Hindu, 22 June, 2009.

[vi] “Obama Offers New Start with Iran”, The Hindu, Online Edition, accessed on 21 March, 2009.

[vii] Aneja Atul, “Why a War against Iran is not Inevitable”, The Hindu, 13 October, 2008.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Aneja Atul, “Iran Lukewarm but Ready for Talks with US”, The Hindu, 13 March, 2009.

[x] Aneja Atul, “Iran Consolidates Position in West Asia”, The Hindu, 25 July, 2008.

[xi] Aneja Atul, “Obama Breaks Fresh Ground in Iran”, The Hindu, 11 April, 2009.

[xii] “The Nuclear Deal with Iran s Better Than the Alternatives-War or No Deal at All”, The Economist, Online Edition, Accessed on 18 July, 2015.

[xiii] Clinton Hillary, “America’s Pacific Century”, Foreign Policy, Online Edition, accessed in November 2011.

[xiv] Veradarajan Siddharth, “On Iran no News is Good News”, The Hindu, 17 November, 2007.

[xv] Johny Stanly, “The Hot Saudi-Iran Cold War”, The Hindu, 15 June, 2015.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] “The Morning after the Nuclear Deal”, Editorial, New York Times, Online Edition, Accessed on 18 July, 2015.

[xviii] Aneja Anul, “Israel Feels Pain as Obama Engages Iran”, 15 May, 2009.

[xix] Abrams Elliott, “Unraveling the Iran Nuclear Deal on Day One”, Council on Foreign Relations, Online Edition, Accessed on 17 July, 2015.

[xx] Sasley Brent, “How Israel can Live with the Iranian Nuclear Agreement”, Foreign Affairs, Online Edition, Accessed on 17 July, 2015.

[xxi] Geranmayel Ellie, “Europe’s Edge: By Engaging With Iran, Europe can assert its Power ”, Foreign Affairs, Online Edition, Accessed on 19 July, 2015.

[xxii] Freilich Chuck, “A Good Deal for Israel”, New York Times, Global Online Edition, Accessed on 19 July 2015.