(Talk
delivered at the United Service Institute of India
on May 11, 2005)
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS
Several
millennia ago a renowned philosopher said: ‘The Unexamined Life
is not Worth Living”. The subject of the talk this morning falls within
the contextual ambit of that quotation from Socrates. Clairvoyance in this
case does not amount to reading the tealeaves or crystal gazing. It is simply
an attempt to analyze what is taking place in the world: some of it transparent,
manifestly so, the larger portion hidden from the public gaze, under a cloud
of media-abetted misrepresentation on a global scale.
When
George W. Bush became the President at the beginning of
the new millennium the horrors of 9/11
had not yet taken place and nor had the world witnessed
the retaliatory might of the U.S.A. Moreover, the 1972 ABM treaty had not
been unilaterally abrogated, the Kyoto Protocol had not been definitively
rejected
by the remaining superpower and so many other negative, potentially planet
destroying, actions had not been unleashed on the world. The world had
entered the new century with hope. In a handful of years – a little over five
years of the younger Bush presidency – the world is beset with fears,
of a type that had not even been conceived of at the turn of the millennium.
While
the world may have put in place mechanisms for mitigating
the effects of natural calamities
visited on humankind, it has yet to find ways to
deal with the disasters brought on by the policies of powerful individuals,
be they
at the helm of affairs in some of the most powerful countries or shadowy
non-state actors. It hardly requires any clairvoyance to see that the
present great power
policies are not conducive to peace in Asia, or the world. A continuance
of these policies threatens to dismantle the existing global order and
plunge
the world into deepening distress – for human beings as well as
for the health of the planet. That being the case the most important
issue before the
world is to put in place mechanisms that could act as a check on the
untrammeled freedom enjoyed by the world leaders, more so, where they
are not in consonance
with the wishes of the vast majority of the people of the planet, including
as well, in many cases, the opinion of people within the countries that
flaunt world opinion.
The items selected for discussion
in this paper are:
- The Hegemonic Decline
- The Global Economy
- Iran
- New Initiatives Toward Lasting Peace on the Subcontinent
Ideally the proposed
expansion of the UN Security Council and the NPT Review Conference now under
way should have found mention. Time and space
considerations preclude their inclusion in a single presentation.
THE HEGEMONIC DECLINE
The
discussion starts with the US for the simple reason that
much of what that country
does impacts on the rest of the world, more so in the
regions where
there is a sizeable US presence, economic, military or both, as is the
case in this part of the world. In like fashion the term ‘hegemon’ is
not used as a pejorative. It is very simply a statement of fact. US super
ascendance over the world is an established fact. Since there is no getting
away from it, it becomes axiomatic that any attempt to look into the future
has to take into account the US ability to shape or interfere with events.
Here an analysis is being attempted of American propensity for strengthening
their dominance of the world juxtaposed to weaknesses that may get exaggerated
in the coming years. The weaknesses that could lead to a decline in US
power would not have been brought about solely through adversarial action;
the
more glaring ones have resulted from shortsighted US policies. The ensuing
paragraphs highlight some of the effects that could lead to a diminishment
in US power.
The
published items reproduced below have generally been gleaned
from Western commentators, mostly
the U.S. press:
-
President Bush's "war
on terror" has
inflicted greater costs on America than that inflicted by
the terrorists themselves. - PAUL CRAIG
ROBERTS
- The American presence
in Iraq is costing $4.5 billion a month and putting
huge strains on the military. Although George W. Bush is comfortably
installed in
his second term the political costs of the second term dominated
by a nightly accounting of continuing casualties might have
to be borne by his party,
the
Republicans, at some stage or the other. (Emphasis added).
(What
is being conveyed here? Not prognostication, merely looking
ahead, to make an assessment
that many Republican senators and congressmen could
increasingly
start questioning President Bush’s more radical agenda within USA,
as distinct from his policies in Iraq. Concerns are being voiced that
George W.
Bush’s persistence with his variety of social security reform
could considerably debilitate the US middle class over a period of
time. Therefore,
unless the
White House is able to push through the presidential agenda and the
more controversial appointments within the next 12 to 18 months, the
chances
of success, thereafter,
would be minimal. After 2006, Mr. Bush might end up becoming the lamest
of the lame duck presidents).
- To finance their
spending, Americans are borrowing from foreigners at a rate
of more than six percent of GDP each year or to put it more
simply
over $ 2
billion every day.
-
North Korea's public revelation that it possessed nuclear weapons
represents a formidable
challenge for the Bush administration. At face value,
the North Korean claim underlines the failure of President Bush's
nonproliferation
policies.
-
The United States while denouncing Tehran’s
development of nuclear weapons is quietly modernising its own arsenal.
"In
this arena of institutionalized cronyism, the living dead rise from
the Cold War graveyard to haunt the halls of Congress whenever
the defense-appropriations subcommittees are in session. You might
wonder how the military will employ,
say, an F/A-22 fighter, a B-2 bomber, or an SSN-774 attack
submarine to protect you from a suitcase nuke or a vial of anthrax
slipped into the country along
with the many shipments of contraband goods that enter
unseen by government agents. But never mind; just keep repeating:
there is a connection between the War on
Terrorism and the hundreds of billions being spent on useless
Cold War weaponry. It's important to Congress, the Pentagon, and
the big contractors that you make
this connection." ("The Iraq War -- A Catastrophic
Success" by
Robert Higgs).
The most striking fact about American politics is the disjunction between
the opinions of ordinary Americans and the behavior of the political
elites (The Economist, April 9, 05).
Although Afghanistan is still beset by political disorder,
continuing insurgency and major drug trafficking, the Afghan
War is largely seen as a success – in
USA and perhaps elsewhere as well.
MILITARY ASPECTS
Not
long back Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld signed a
new National Defense Strategy paper
that said
the use
of space "enables us to project power anywhere in
the world from secure bases of operation." The Pentagon,
as is generally known is developing a sub-orbital space
capsule that could hit targets anywhere in the world
within two hours of being launched from U.S. bases. It
is also developing systems that could attack potential
enemy satellites, destroying them or temporarily preventing
them from sending signals. It would mean that the United
States is moving toward a national space doctrine that
is preemptive, proactive and potentially destabilizing.
Moscow and Beijing have for years promoted a new treaty
to govern arms in space, since the current international
agreement prohibits only nuclear or other weapons of
mass destruction in space. Hu Xiaodi, the Chinese ambassador
to the United Nations Disarmament Conference, at a U.N.
disarmament meeting last year criticized efforts to achieve "control
of outer space," as well as research into weapons
that can be used there. "It is no exaggeration to
say that outer space would become the fourth battlefield
after land, sea and air should we sit on our hands," he
averred.
Washington
sees gaining control of space as key to maintaining global
military dominance, and
missile
defence is part
of the strategy. The U.S. plans to eventually have
missile defence systems based in space (as well
as on land, air
and sea). This is part of the US attempt to achieving "space
superiority," a goal spelled out in the 2004 U.S.
Air Force document Counterspace Operations, which argues
that the U.S. must have "space control" and be
able to "deny an adversary freedom of action in space." The
prospect of the arms race moving into space may
give comfort to Washington strategic planners,
but dismays
the rest
of the world. In 1967, ninety-seven nations signed
the Outer Space Treaty banning weapons from space.
Since then,
there has been pressure for a tougher ban. Virtually
all nations now support a proposed new ban. The
U.S. does not.
It wants to take control of space to achieve lasting
military dominance.
Because
of the extensive US military involvement, which is not
limited to the Middle East, the
employment
of special
forces in military policing operations,
under the guise of peace-keeping and training, is contemplated in
all major regions of the world. A significant portion
of this deployment would be undertaken
by private mercenary companies on contract to the Pentagon, NATO
or even the United Nations. The growing profits of
defence
contractors and security agencies
(mostly western) are undermining the morale and motivation of professional
soldiers in these countries, notably USA and UK. In the longer term
they could adversely affect intake of good quality
new
recruits. For example, it has been
reported, that retired professionals from Britain’s SAS are
charging up to $ 1000 per day for specialized work in Iraq in the
danger zones.
It has led to many regular SAS personnel seeking premature release,
because the differential
between their emoluments and those of the employees of security agencies
with equivalent capabilities is so vast as to put paid to the patriotism
of most
serving soldiers. Moreover, the occupation of Iraq, being a case
of sheer capitalist exploitation of another country, would hardly
fall in the
category of national
causes inspiring patriotism.
At
this stage the role of the National Guard and the Reserves
(together, the Reserve Component)
needs to be understood. Beginning in the late
1970s, U.S.
military forces were designed to incorporate this Reserve Component
as an essential element in any major military operation. The Guard
and the
Reserves were not
set up, however, to fight a long and grueling counterinsurgency
war. The Iraq War has highlighted deficiencies in this regard.
Indeed,
the Army Reserve is "rapidly
degenerating into a broken force" in the words of its top commander in
early 2005. The focus is on the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard, by
far the largest of the reserve components (RC). They are experiencing the greatest
difficulties. As of January 2005, the RC makes up some 40 percent of the military
in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Among the Army dead in OIF, about a quarter have
been from reserve components. Surveys and interview data have found large differences
in the morale of the active duty versus the reserve components. These differences
have been widely affirmed over a period of time. Reservists were seen to be
markedly more dissatisfied than the active force. This was not thought to be
on account of the mission, but rather due to the reservists' perception of
inadequate training and poorer equipment compared to that of the active duty
forces. The recurring theme was that reserve components were treated as "second-class" members
of the Army.
The morale issues that have come
to public attention in OIF have revolved around reserve units;
the most notable being the prison
abuse scandal
of the 372nd
Military Police Company (based in Maryland) in Abu Ghraib. There
was also the case (October 2004) of the reservists in the 343rd
Quartermaster Company (based
in South Carolina) who refused orders to deliver fuel on the
grounds that their vehicles were inadequately armored and
the fuel to be
delivered
was contaminated.
On December 8, 2004, Specialist Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental
Combat Team (Tennessee) asked a pointed question about insufficient
vehicle armor
of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that became a national story. In
addition, significant numbers of persons called up for IRR duty
have sought
to avoid being activated
and made their cases public by taking legal action.
In
describing the twin components of the emerging US military
strategy – i.e.,
the projected domination of space at astronomical outlays and the declining
motivation of the soldiers on the ground - it is intended to show that while
the heads of the US establishment may remain euphorically in the clouds the
situation on the ground could become more complicated with each passing day.
It could ultimately cause setbacks, which the highest technologies might not
be able to retrieve. The creeping infirmity referred to above has a bearing – or
should have a bearing – on US plans for the subjugation of Iran - dealt
with later on in the paper. (The aspect of demoralization and psychological
disorientation of US forces has been dealt with extensively in the author’s
books Dealing with Global Terrorism: The Way Forward (Sterling-2003) and Global
Security Paradoxes: 2000-2020 – MANAS - 2004).
Before moving on to other issues
it is worth pondering over an excerpt from a book published
barely two months ago in the
USA:
“In physical economy, the fixing of the technology of practice to some
existing level, defines the physical trend in the economy as entropic. Empires
and the like forms of exploitation of foreigners, compensate, if only temporarily,
for the decadence of the mother country by parasitism against the foreigner’s
physical wealth and human bodies. As the factor of entropy in the combined system
of native and foreign operations closes in on the combined elements of that imperial
or quasi-imperial system, as upon the U.S.A. and increasingly “outsourced” Europe
today, the logic of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire in the West, and
then in the East, is expressed as the doom of the system, as the U.S. is threatened
by destruction by its own hand today. (Earth’s Next
Fifty Years by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.)
These are not speculative forebodings.
They are pointers to a likely decline in US power unless
the US government
decides
to
harmonize
its policies with
the other major world powers in a joint effort for promoting
global stability.
THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
The
West is facing the twin strains of declining fertility and
loss of manufacturing
and office jobs to Asia. Whether its economic security
could continue through its present dominance of the financial
and the knowledge industries alone remains
a moot point. Even the question of whether the nation
state is eroding in the era of globalization needs going
into. Undoubtedly, there may be facets of
national sovereignty under considerable strain due
to globalization and the spread of MNCs. Nevertheless, there
are contra-indications showing that for
that very reason an opposite if not an equal reaction
might be building up. WTO and other protocols demanding international
adherence might tend to undermine
national sovereignty. As a consequence thereof many
nations have decided to strengthen national controls in areas
that do not come under the purview of
global protocols. The xenophobic sentiment is likely
to get more pronounced in the coming years. Similarly, post-9/11,
in the face of threats of terrorism,
global or local, more and more countries are enacting
legislations that put greater curbs on individual liberty.
Ironically, this tendency is the strongest
in the countries that are in the forefront for the
promotion of democracy around the world, notably USA and
UK.
Taking all these aspects together
some of the leading economists from around the world have
been drawing attention with increasing
frequency to the coming
economic collapse of the global economy unless
urgent remedial measures are put in place. Here is a sampling
of
some of the comments:
-
The US economy is growing at a “reasonably good pace,” said
the Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, but he warned
that dangerous budget
deficits must be fixed, preferably through
spending cuts. “You cannot
continuously introduce legislation which
tends to expand budget deficit because down the road the
impact of an ever-rising deficit, especially as a percent
of the GDP, creates some significant weakness
in the structure of the economy,” Greenspan
told the House of Representatives Budget
Committee. “Addressing the government’s
own imbalances will require scrutiny of both
spending and taxes. However, tax increases of sufficient
dimension to deal with our looming fiscal problems
arguably pose significant risks to economic
growth and the revenue base,” he
stated. (The Economic Times, Friday
4 March 2005).
-
Every week of the deployment of troops in Iraq costs US
taxpayers $1
billion. The overall
spending on the military
operation
and reconstruction may top $280
billion. The Iraqi campaign is becoming
the most expensive in US history. The trouble is that
the US
army cannot pull out of Iraq now or in the future. It
would be construed as a defeat for Washington’s
Middle Eastern policy.
-
As a nation we are consuming and investing about 6 percent
more than we are producing. What holds it all together
is a massive and growing flow of capital
from abroad, running to more than $2
billion every working day, and growing. There is no
sense of strain. I don’t
know of any country that has managed
to consume and invest 6 percent more
than it produces for long. The United
States is absorbing about 80 percent
of the net flow of international capital.
(US
economy skating on thin ice by Paul A. Volcker, The Tribune,
April 13, 2005)
Although
there would be many contributory factors to a global economic
decline,
the main ones are
being linked to US profligacy and
fiscal indiscipline. In
the opinion of this writer the
looming crisis before the global economy
can be artificially
kept at
bay for a considerable period of
time by the powers that be. The reason is
that
any sudden
decline
in the US power could adversely
affect many other nations, if not
the globe as a whole. So, therefore, at
this point
in time,
regardless of the US economic overextension,
a catastrophic
- as distinct from a gradual -
decline in US power might generally not be
in the world’s interest.
Currently,
the United States is hugely indebted to the nations
that hold the
largest foreign
exchange reserves: China, Japan
and Saudi Arabia, among
others.
These countries know that the
reserves they hold – collectively reaching
a figure of approximately 2 trillion
dollars, if not more - are intrinsically perhaps not worth
the paper they're written on. Japan and China know it? Saudi
Arabia knows it? But, they are
all part of the global system. The governing
elites of China, Japan, Saudi
Arabia, have been co-opted into the system. So, they're not
in a position to pull the rug from under the feet of the
United
States, and bring in that collapse,
because a collapse of the United States ipso facto translates
into a collapse of China's ambition to be a global power
by about 2025. China, therefore,
is not going to pull the rug. Although the U.S. Treasury
receipts may be devalued paper, China is using those assets
to
transform itself into a global
power.
The
powers that control the U.S. establishment today are aware
that their economic
policies are pushing the United
States into a
headlong decline?
Not only are
they alive to the possible
outcome, having access to some of the
best economic advice
in the world,
there appears to be some deliberateness
to it. They are
positioning themselves to benefit
from a global collapse. In
the United States,
the people allowing
the decline to set in are putting
their own money into
an area that is already defunct.
They know it. The National
Missile Defense
(NMD)
effort alone,
over the period of its lifespan
of 25 years or so, is going
to cost America $1.2 trillion.
The identity of the people
who have bought
into and
control the
firms and entities that are
going to support the NMD and allied
space domination systems is
revealing.
As
stated earlier, the challenge before the world is not so
much to diminish
U.S. power, a catastrophic
decline at this juncture
not being a solution, but
to change U.S. mindsets and
channel America's amazing
vitality toward
productive ends;
ends that will
allow for the speedy revitalization
of the planet. There
is an urgent need for a global
financial regulatory agency – an independent
body – for putting curbs on financial speculations that could distort
the global economy or that of a country by outside forces. The regulatory body
should strive to first restore economic equilibrium on a regional basis and
prescribe limits to speculative and windfall profits. Market forces no longer
control global markets, if they ever did. The oft – used capitalist homily
of ‘leaving it to market forces’ is
not only routinely misapplied
it is perhaps one of the
biggest myths to have been
propagated since the advent
of Adam Smith. Hardly any
economist can reasonably
claim to understand the subterranean
capital flows that buffet
the global markets practically
on a
daily basis.
IRAN
There
is not much doubt that US preparations for action against
Iran are
going ahead. What form the action might
take or when remains a matter for conjecture. It could
be any of the following: outright invasion, regime
change, or intensive high-tech bombardment. Although a full-scale
invasion in the manner of Iraq appears to be unlikely,
it cannot, however, be ruled out. Iraq itself was to
have been an important base for the projection of US
force against Iran. The latest developments in Iraq
would
have relegated this jump off point to a lower priority.
US forces in Iraq would, nevertheless, attempt to effectively
seal the border with Iran. The other launch pads that
have been developed are the bases in Afghanistan, Central
Asia and Pakistan. The last named country has become
the most important, with sizeable tracts in Balochistan
reportedly being acquired by the US.
In the face of the likelihood of
US action against Iran what should the world do? If it were
to supinely sit back as in the case of Iraq and simply twiddle
its thumbs, clearly it would stretch the existing world order to near breaking
point. More importantly, it would make the US military-industrial complex
even more intractable. The world cannot shut its eyes and
allow Iran to go under
in the manner of Iraq. Standing up for Iran does not in any way indicate
support for its nuclear policies or for the religious dispensation
running that country.
Since mere condemnatory noises have
seldom deterred the Americans, concerted global action must
be put in place
before further madness engulfs the region.
These actions could include, inter alia:
- Resolution to be
passed by the European parliament warning USA not to undertake
military action against Iran without UN Security Council
Resolution.
- Similar resolutions
in respective national parliaments by Germany, France,
Spain, and all other countries that could be deemed to
be against the projected
US action.
- Russia, China
and India to make an unequivocal statement that military
action against Iran by the USA would invite non-cooperation with
USA by these countries
in designated areas.
- Russia to consider
extending more efficacious defensive military help to Iran
to withstand
US military action. It is high time that Russia too starts
drawing
its red lines or les lignes jaunes as the French would say
because should Iran
go under in the pattern of Iraq, Russia would be further
diminished to a considerable extent. German and French
commercial interests would also be adversely affected,
as happened in the case of Iraq. Perhaps there is a method
to the American madness.
On the part of Iran, as a measure
of abundant caution, it could even consider inviting
Russia to establish one air
and one
naval base in
Iran for a period
of 5 years. Iran would defray the expenses of the two
bases on Iranian territory at mutually worked out locations.
Whether Russia
would agree
is a matter that
can be explored by the two countries. The reasons for
the
choice of Russia in this regard would be fairly evident.
The
US and its allies must be watching with dismay the spread
of Shiite influence in the Middle
East. With most
of Iraq
already under their
sway, the Iranians
would be looking covetously at Lebanon. The Americans
might have succeeded in booting out the Syrians. The vacuum
thus
created
is most likely
to be filled by the Iranian protégé, the Hizballah. It is perhaps the only
well-organized, well-funded and well-backed force remaining in Lebanon after
the Israeli withdrawal and the projected Syrian withdrawal. The Iranians and
the Shiite heads have become politically savvy. They sense that US policies
could pave the way for Shiite dominance of the Middle East. To further these
aims, Hizballah’s Sheikh Hassan Nasrullah will most likely mould his
followers into a political party in order to capture political power in Lebanon.
Not only would the US be unhappy with this turn of events, Sunni Islam would
be more shaken with these developments. It is with this anticipated backlash
from Sunni Islam in mind – at whatever stage – that Iran is pursuing
its nuclear weapons programme. The Iranian nuclear capability is not exclusively
designed to counter USA and Israel. There are longer-term compulsions for Iran,
much after the Americans decide – again at whatever stage – to
leave the Middle East.
Regardless of the present situation
in Iran and the current turmoil around Iran, the world including
civilized
people
in the USA,
must appreciate
that Iran is an ancient civilization with a very
refined culture that pre-dates Islam by several millennia.
The destruction of that country
in the manner
of
Iraq would deprive the world of another unique heritage.
It
is too steep a price to pay for gratifying the expansionist
urge
of vested
financial
and military
interests from another part of the world.
TOWARDS A LASTING PEACE ON THE SUBCONTINENT
Lasting
Peace usually turns out to be a chimera. Nevertheless, it
is the general
belief that the visits to India in April 2005
by the Chinese premier Wen Jiabao and President Musharraf
were an important step toward this end with the majority
of the writers opining that they were harbingers
of peace. What are the prospects of the recent agreements
resulting in long-term stability in the region?
Beginning
with China the agreements were essentially re-iteration
of the framework agreed upon
during the visit of Prime Minister
Vajpayee a few years earlier.
Even when (and there is a big If to it) the
boundary dispute is finally settled between China and India,
the latter
would be displaying extreme naiveté if
it were to take Chinese assurances at face
value. For lasting peace between China and India, the following
conditions must obtain, absolutely and irreversibly:
- Demilitralisation
of Tibet followed by the demilitarization of the Himalayas
between the two
countries. At the very least there should be no offensive
military
forces in the Tibet Autonomous Region.
- Stoppage of transfer
of nuclear and missile technologies to Pakistan.
- Hands off policy
in Bangladesh and Nepal.
- No further attempts
to establish a military presence of any type in the Bay
of Bengal.
Right
from the time of China’s first intrusion into Tibet,
Indian leaders have been yielding ground to China – literally
and figuratively. First, on account of a hazy grasp of
realpolitic and, after the 1962 debacle, on account
of a perceived military inferiority,
more so after the break-up of the Soviet Union. Apparently,
their study of Chinese history did not familiarize them
sufficiently with the general thrust
of Chinese policies over the millennia
for the nations on the periphery
of the Middle Kingdom. By the 1950s China had attained
its objective by occupying Tibet. At the same time it was
facing
a difficult situation in Korea.
To ensure that India did not question its occupation of
Tibet it fell back on its time-tested strategy of yore.
It projected maximalist
demands - well beyond the limits
of its geo-strategic imperatives of the 1950s – by
laying claim to Indian territories.
This
stratagem was resorted to, to ensure that India’s
focus remained forever thereafter only on the boundary
between Tibet and India and on those portions of territory
disputed by China. Tibet,
thereby, was cleverly placed outside
the ambit of any territorial adjustments that, at some
later date, might have caused China considerable discomfort,
if pursued vigorously by India.
Had the Indian statesmen seen through China’s
strategy they could straightaway
have countered by at least questioning China’s
annexation of Tibet or its rapid
demographic swamping. It should be recalled that Chairman
Mao had given assurances to the Dalai Lama during the latter’s
visit to Beijing in the mid-1950s
that Tibetan autonomy would be fully respected.
It
is pointless dwelling on the past, however. Having yielded
ground to
China on almost
every count, India has
to ensure that it never again
underestimates
Chinese capabilities, regardless
of the harmonizing of relations
that may
ensue in the coming
decades. It is the US presence
and India’s growing
economic strength, which
have brought about a change
in Chinese attitude towards
India.
It would be premature and
highly incautious to mistake
it for a change of heart.
Turning
to Pakistan it will be seen that Gen.
Musharraf’s credentials
for running Pakistan
may appear increasingly
attractive to the Western
world and China, more
recently, perhaps to
India as well. The General
was forced
to do a U – turn
after 9/11 with a gun
to his head. He capitulated.
Publicly he has been
making all the right
noises. These have been
music to US ears.
Even his liberal leanings
may flow from genuine
conviction. What is the
reality on the ground,
however? The Jihadi elements,
no matter how vociferously
denounced
by him in public proclamations
from time to time, are
flourishing as heretofore.
The madrasas – many
still spawning venom-spewing
pupils – continue
to mushroom. What is
more, the political reach
of the radical elements
has been extended beyond
their wildest expectations
under his dispensation
at the
cost of the mainstream
political parties.
Now
they are unshakably
entrenched politically in several
provinces.
Evidently
there is a
contradiction working
here. How does
one explain the yawning
gap
between the perceptions
of the western elites
and the
equally
incontrovertible
signs of the strengthening
of the radical elements
in Pakistan
who
have during
the
same dispensation,
established a strong
presence in Bangladesh.
The
undeniable hiatus between the two perspectives
can
be put down
to General
Musharraf’s subtle revenge on the Americans for having forced him to
betray the very people who had given a leg up to his military career from the
time that he was chosen by General Zia-ul-Haq for a delicate mission. It seems
to be forgotten that it was Pervez Musharraf whom General Zia had selected
to deal with the restive Northern Areas. To impress General Zia, Brig. Musharraf
took a leaf out of a former Army Chief, Gen. Tikka Khan’s book. The latter
had earned the sobriquet ‘Butcher of Balochistan’. Musharraf’s
handling of the unrest in Gilgit - Baltistan was no less severe. The question
then arises “has Musharraf turned over a new leaf or is he playing along
with the Americans to the extent that he can manage the differences”?
This
point becomes clearer if a rhetorical
counter
question is
posed in the
same vein to his
American and
Western interlocutors.
To whit, “hypothetically,
if someone had obliged the famous Senator McCarthy with a gun to his head to
do a U-turn on communism would it be fair to assume that in case he had gone
along to save his skin he would have actually gone soft on communism”?
Nearer our time we can pose another question, this time to those who orchestrated
the invasion of Iraq, “were the neocons to be made to do a U – turn
in their policies, under duress, would it signify a final rejection of their
cherished beliefs”? Should the answer to these posers be in the negative,
Musharraf’s policies will become clearer – retrospectively
and prospectively.
In
this regard, just a few days
earlier
the Editor
of
the Friday
Times, Najam
Sethi in
an interview
in Chennai (reproduced
in The
Hindu May 6,
2005) states, inter alia: “Al Qaeda, sectarian Islam, political Islam that seeks to
capture state power and jihadi Islam are also elements of the same paradigm”.
More ominously he adds, “ The fact that Al Qaeda and political Islam
are hovering in the region meant that they could lay their hands on these weapons”.
General
Musharraf and the Military-ISI
combine
continue
to sedulously
nurture this
constituency,
notwithstanding
the capture
of top Al
Qaeda leaders
every now and
then. What
is more,
in
a devilishly
clever subterfuge,
they
have provided
them with a
politically legitimate window
to democratically
reach
for the levers
of power and,
by extension,
at some
stage, with
their sympathizers
in
the military,
total control
over the nuclear
assets of Pakistan.
The political
door
for them might
have been
opened just
a crack. They
have been quick
to
firmly
wedge their
foot into
the crack.
The door cannot be
shut on
them now -
by Pervez
Musharraf
or his successors.
All this while
the US was
physically
present in Pakistan
with their hand
on the General’s
shoulder.
Both
in the
case of China
and
Pakistan
these are
the hard
realities that
must temper
the enthusiasm
generated
by the media
in relation
to the
two visits
that were
dubbed as
the harbingers
to lasting
peace. The
divide
between India
and
Pakistan
is more fundamental
than
imagined.
The very basis
of
their
separation
militates
against an easy return
to normalcy.
Whatever
the outcome
of negotiations
it has
to be kept
in
mind that
the two strongest
entities
in Pakistan
today
remain the
military
and the mullahs,
both viscerally
opposed to
the
very thought
of a prosperous
India. Therefore,
till the
time that
these entities suffer
significant
diminishment
in their
power and
are replaced
by
a deeply
entrenched democratic
dispensation,
fully committed
to the rule
of law,
freedom of
the press,
abolition
of
medieval
religious laws, independence
of the judiciary
and the freedom
for all religions
to co-exist
as equals
in Pakistan,
lasting peace
is
not
likely to
come about any time
soon.
At best it
would be
an uneasy
accommodation.
The case
of China
is somewhat
different.
A realization
may be dawning
on Indian
and
Chinese leaders
as well
as
the people
of these
two countries
that
genuine peace
between
China and
India,
should it
come about,
could
make a monumental
difference
to
peace in
Asia. It
could
change the
very dynamic
of world
peace. More
importantly,
it would
allow the
peoples
of these
two
countries
to re-discover
the
phenomenal
goodwill
that
marked their
relations
for the best
part
of two
millennia.
The
gains accruing
there from would
go well beyond
the
ushering
of peace
and prosperity
for nearly
40 per cent
of humanity
in the
21st century.
The
concluding remark
of this presentation
coming
at the
mid-point of the
first decade
of the
21st century is
by
way of
an item
that appeared
in
a little
known newssheet,
which encompasses
the
very
real concerns
of a large
portion
of
humanity
for
whom geopolitics
and
geo-strategy
are obfuscating
terms
used
by leaders
to camouflage
their
inability
to
achieve
equitable
growth
and harmony
within
their countries
and without.
“
It has been the biggest ever travesty of human development
that today we have more poor people on earth than before.
On the face of all the glitter and glamour
that
goes for human progress poverty hangs as a shameful spectre.
With all the economic development achieved so far the gap
between the rich and poor
has been
increasingly growing over the years and the poor are becoming
poorer day by day. The violation of nature has cost us
dear. For all the proud achievements
of our
materialistic age, we are inhaling poisonous air, drinking
polluted water, eating pesticide-infested food and absorbing
all sorts of harmful chemicals
or other
synthetic products”.
(Purity,
April
2005).
People
living
in
overcrowded metropolitan
cities
are
aware of these
ill-effects
resulting
in
the
early onset
of
Cancer, Diabetes
and
other life-threatening
diseases
in
growing
numbers
of
young
people.
The
frenetic
pace
of
unplanned,
uncoordinated
over-development
has
already made
large
swaths
of
territory
in
China, Thailand,
Russia
and
so many
other
places
practically
uninhabitable.
National
elites
are
expending
too
much
of
their energies
and
time on
geopolitical
and
geo-strategic
considerations.
If
the planet
has
to
remain
habitable
for
the coming
generations
it
is necessary
to
re-focus
on
issues related
to
geo-economy
for
amelioration of the
human
condition
for
the vast
majority
of
human
beings.
Instead
of
pushing for
their
place
in
an expanded
Security
Council
these
countries
should
press
for
reform of
the
global monetary
and
financial
systems
and
the Bretton
Woods
instrumentalities.
There
is
a crying
need
for
reducing
the
indebtedness of developing
countries
groaning
under
the
weight
of
payouts
for
servicing national
debts.
As
a first
step
a global
conclave
on
the lines
of
the
Afro-Asian summit
held
recently
in
Jakarta
should
jointly
work
on
proposals whereby
a
nation’s
debt
would
automatically
start
declining
by
a given
percentage
annually
after
the
principal
amount
of
the
debt
has
been
serviced
twice
or
a maximum
of
thrice
over
through
interest
payments.
Similarly,
currency
fluctuations
should
not
be
permitted
to
adversely – and
artificially
- affect
the
indebtedness
of
nations.
Under
no
circumstances
should
the
burden
be
allowed
to accumulate oppressively and indefinitely.
|