India should resist the West's brazen efforts to use championship of democracy as a cover for regime change.
In June 1914, Serbian ultra-nationalists calling themselves the Black Hand managed to kill Archduke Ferdinand, the heir apparent to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian empire, in Sarajevo and ignited the First World War. None of the Great Powers wanted that war. None expected it to last more than four weeks. It lasted four years and took 19.5 million lives. Today, three apparently coordinated attacks on Israeli diplomats in Georgia, India and Thailand, for which Tel Aviv is strenuously blaming Iran, could become the spark for a similar conflagration in the Middle East.
The comparison is not as fanciful as it sounds, for the configuration of forces in the international state system is beginning to resemble what existed in the decade before the First World War. The most striking similarities are the decline in the economic power of the hegemonic nation — Britain then, the United States today; challenges from new aspirants to hegemony, Germany then (with the U.S. lurking in the wings), China and Salafi Islam today; attempts to shore up hegemony through alliances with like-minded nations — Britain, France and Russia then — the U.S., the European Union and Israel today; the emergence of a bunker mentality that hardens stances and progressively closes the avenues for peace through accommodation; and a growing temptation to use military power to pre-empt potential challenges even before they arise.
Minor player
In 1914 it was Austria, a minor player in the great power game, that lit the fuse that blew up Europe. It could have chosen to accept Serbia's frantic efforts to make amends after the assassination. But it chose to invade Serbia in order to teach its own fractious nationalities a lesson. Serbia was allied to Russia, Russia to France and France to Britain. Austria, on the other hand, was allied to the principal challenger for hegemony in Europe, Germany. None of the great powers wanted war, but none felt sufficiently secure or had the confidence to back off from its commitments. The result was a war that wiped out the flower of a generation in Europe.
Today, it is once more the smallest and least secure member of the western alliance, Israel, that is threatening to light the fuse in the Middle East. Unable, or perhaps unwilling, to make peace with the Palestinians on terms that they can accept, it now perceives the mere existence of states in its neighbourhood that are not reconciled to its existence as a threat to its existence. Iran heads the list.
Israel has given a virtual ultimatum to its partners that if they cannot stop Iran from setting up uranium enrichment plants, it will take unilateral military action to stop it from doing so. Instead of dissuading Tel Aviv in unequivocal terms, Barack Obama has dithered between privately reining it in, and publicly supporting it by sending two aircraft carrier groups into the Arabian Sea and threatening to use “other means” if Iran does not stop its nuclear enrichment programme.
Dangerous moment
Israel's brinkmanship has come at a dangerous moment because, for reasons both domestic and international, Europe, the U.S., Russia, China (the new kid on the block), and Iran, are suffering from a crisis of confidence that makes them wary of appearing weak in the eyes of the international community and their own people. Tired of unending economic woes at home and fighting a losing battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the U.S. and the EU have seized upon the so-called Arab Spring in a desperate bid to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. To do so, they are posing as champions of democracy and human rights, who have come to the aid of the long suppressed Arab “people” in their fight for democracy against corrupt, brutal and autocratic rulers. In their eagerness to don the mantle of saviours they have not merely abandoned the secular, albeit autocratic, regimes that had kept the peace in the Middle East for four decades, but trampled upon the last remnants of the doctrine of national sovereignty upon which the international order, indeed international law itself, has been based for the last 350 years.
Thus in January last year, Mr. Obama virtually forced Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to resign; in February, the U.S. and the EU joined hands to destroy the Qadhafi regime in Libya; less than two months later, they embarked upon a campaign to oust the Baath regime of Basher-al-Assad in Syria.
Unfortunately, the Arab Spring hasn't turned out quite the way the West had hoped, for in every country, the secular democratic elements have been swamped by an Islamist upsurge. Faced with a possibility that these governments could turn out to be far more anti-West and anti-Israel than their predecessors, the West has turned to the orthodox Wahabi establishment of Saudi Arabia and the Sunni sheikhs of the UAE to keep the Muslim brotherhood and more extreme Salafi factions in check. But these regimes too have been feeling the cold winds of the Arab Spring and have hastened to find ways of diverting them elsewhere. They have done so by reviving a far older conflict — between Sunni and Shia Islam, between Arabs and Persians.
Syria, the convergence point
Syria has become the convergence point of both this conflict and the U.S.' and the EU's struggle to protect Israel at any cost. This is because it is an anomaly. It is an authoritarian country ruled by a minority in which the religious majority has not shown any signs of restiveness for more than 40 years. It is a deeply religious but secular country in which men and women mingle freely in the workplace, in markets, and in restaurants; where movies are not banned and drinking liquor is not haraam. It is western enough to have a national symphony orchestra and a western music conservatoire patronised by the President of the country, but is also an unabashed champion of Arab nationalism and the rights of the Palestinians, willing to cooperate with Iran and the Hezbollah to further their cause.
In Israeli and American eyes, it is precisely Syria's (and Libya's) capacity for independent action, and the remote possibility that it might become a conduit for Iranian fidayeen to penetrate and attack Israel, which turns it into a threat. That is why the Assad regime must now be destroyed, much as Qadhafi was four months ago.
India has been asked to join the high table at which the U.S., the EU and Israel already sit and has so far been a none-too-unwilling guest. It has either abstained, or voted for, every resolution tabled in the U.N. by the hegemonic powers in favour of militarily enforced regime change in the Middle East. It is again faced with a non-binding resolution in the Security Council, being brought by Saudi-and UAE-dominated Arab League, demanding that Mr. Assad “move aside.” And Israel is already urging India to support a resolution in the Security Council condemning Iran for the bomb attack on its diplomat in Delhi, before its agencies have completed their investigations.
New Delhi can be forgiven if it is tempted to stay on at the high table. But it has a duty, to not only its own people but the rest of the world, to get off it and become an independent voice of sanity and moderation. It must stoutly oppose the West's brazen effort to turn the championship of democracy and human rights into a cover for regime change. This is the most complete violation of Article 2 of the U.N. Charter that is possible to imagine. The U.S., and now the EU have decided to ignore their commitments as signatories of the U.N. Charter and have twisted the U.N. into an unrecognisable parody of itself. But for scores of small countries, its Charter remains the only refuge from international anarchy and a headlong plunge into Hobbes' State of Nature. India must speak up for them. As the most open and democratic and the least threatening large country in the world, it has far better credentials to do so than Russia and China. It must not leave this task to them alone.
Balance smashed
For decades, peace in the Middle East had depended on a balance between secular nations that subscribed to the ideals of social freedom and gender equality, and traditionalist emirates and monarchies, created or sustained by the western powers to safeguard their interests in Arab oil. Today, the West has all but smashed that balance. Only fools can persuade themselves that handing over control of the Arab world to the Salafis who planned, participated in, and certainly approved of the destruction of the World Trade Centre, will make terrorism go away. But only those who are fools twice over can believe that allowing Israel to trigger a ruinous war with Iran will make the world “safer for humanity.” What it will do is to unleash the fury of Shia terrorism as well on the West. One shudders to think of where that road could lead.
Keywords: Syria, West Asia, India, Austro-Hungarian empire, President Barack Obama, Shia terrorism, political crisis
Bertrand Russell said," When the world goes mad a mathematician finds in mathematics an incomparable anodyne." As for Jews they are not dummy.Even if they are capable of wiping out the Arabs they would not do so.Israel exists today because the Arabs exist.After all there was no love lost between the Jews and the western world. Jews were not wanted in the western world.The west carved out the country of Israel and packed many of the Jews out of the west.Today the west wants Israel to keep the Arabs under check. If the Arabs are wiped out the West would not need Israel anymore and Uncle Sam will stop pumping American Dollars into Israel. Remember once Tamil Tigers were virtually wiped out the country of Ceylon did not want General Fonseca anymore.In one of the Sanskrit stories Bukkunda was about to be hanged to death. He told King Bhhopathi(whose name would follow Bukkunda in alphabetic order) that once Bukkunda was killed next in line for Yama would be Bhoopathi.King spared Bukkunda.
Thank you India for a voice of sanity!
A fully biased article, at the time when we are already fearing countries owning nuclear bombs, we cannot afford another country in the list, if you fear Iran with out a nuke now, what would be the magnitude of our fear once Iran acquires nuclear bomb,it is unfair to see everything that west does in a negative way.
Yes its sad people are dying in Syria. And US and Europe everyone feels about it. Aren't people also dying in Somalia. Maybe its because Syria is of more strategic importance to the West than Somalia and that decides which deaths are more sad.
Prem Shankar Jha has hit the nail on the head. The greatest threat to
stability in the Middle East is not elusive "terrorism" but the
belligerent actions of state-sponsored terrorism - Israel. Israel,
not content to have committed massacring defenseless Palestinians
during Operation Cast Lead, is now upping the ante by egging on the
violence in Syria and pushing for regime change in Iran (after having
colluded in Iraq and Libya with the opposition to the erstwhile
regimes). The chronic insecurity of Israel and the total impotence of
its political patrons is cause for grave concern and could lead to
another global conflagration especially, as Mr. Jha correctly notes,
when there are ailing powers who currently depend on military exports
to shore up their shaky economies. India can be a force for good by
telling the instigators that it will have no part in starting another
world war.
Which facts are facts, which facts are made up, a million dollar question these days.
Never was there a better time to stand alone. That is what India needs to do: stand alone, on its own. Take every decision on a case by case basis.
Neither the conveniently double standard west, nor the religiously zealous middle east are correct every time.
India must make up its own mind on anything and everything. Righteousness is a duty not an act of convenience.
@Damien
Check out the religious distribution in population in ALL the countries.
India will be the one with most even distribution. As per the
constitution there is nothing that intrudes into peoples life. Even with
a large minority communities, India handles the situation well. If you
are talking about US, we are all aware of its Islamophobia.
The only statement I majorly disagree with in the article is that India is the most "open and democratic" large country in the world. Other than that, I quite agree that though the situation is not totally a recreation of the WW1 scenario, the potboiler is something that in the coming years, will to something devastating. India's pseudo-diplomatic stand is understood, however.
Absolutely brilliant and spot on. Exactly puts forward whats the state
of the affairs today. India should better be neutral but powerful. I
doubt the government led by Manmohan Singh would be anything like that.
I these situations, an Indira Gandhi or a Vajpayee would have been
great.
Imperialism has been handed over from one entity to another for several generations. From tribal leaders, kings, governments to multinational corporations. It is not easy to stop imperialism. People use different name like capitalism to cover up their imperialistic ambitions and to protect their interests.
The developed countries always want to provide welfare to their people at the expense of people from developing countries. When the living standards improve in developing countries the denizens of developed countries will feel the heat and need to sweat.
India should stop acting as the string-controlled puppet in the hands
of the "power" lobby... it is about time we stop pretending to be
"global leaders" and actually show some spine, a war with Iran not
only jeopardizes global security, it will also divide the world into
two power blocs...much like what was the case in the Soviet era
...The US and the EU are taking on their roles as upholders of world
security affairs rather too indiscriminately. Their double standards
were pretty much evident with the cases of Bahrain and Saudi...It is
clear that the US and EU are only guarding their own interests and
those of their allies, even if it guarantees death and destruction.
It is not correct that none of the great powers wanted war with regards
to WW1. In fact, nationalism was flourishing and the average person in
Germany, France, Austria, etc. wanted their country to go to war so that
they could serve. USA and Britain were the only exceptions.
We are precisely hitting the East India Company moment (in smiley so call benign way). West wants to use Dollar, Euro, Media, Democracy and Petrol controlled by few rulers in Middle East to role the world. Since 2008, there is a brutal realization in the emerging world that all is not good in West in every sense. Un-controlled financial policy (since they can print euro and dollar), unwillingness to accept others as equal, divide and rule and bad goverance is cutting away. With only a decade away for China, particularly and India, secondly to question them in every move they make, they need some new policies rewritten with money, military and media to keep that. Hence the game is on and will be little brutal since West is not used to lecture from China and India for more than 5 centuries. India need to be neutral, be blunt, stay away from group politics and be friendly to all nation people. We got to get this out loud and clear. Else we will be fooled by West in the name praise.
Dr.Uday, you are right when you say no one in the US or perhaps Israel want a “Global Hegemony”. It is the Governments who wage wars not the people.
“Arab Spring” for Democracy or is it turning out to be a “winter of discontent”!!.
U.S. president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined democracy as:
«Government of the people, by the people, for the people»
My view of democracy – “Government of the people, by the people, for a few people.”
Democracy is controlled by huge corporation (multi national companies) and not the people.
I believe it is time we had another fight for independence. Time and again there is a need to change, and change is inevitable.
Hopefully democracy will give way to another form of government. Whether it will benefit the Bapu on the street is to be seen.
Very well-written, and I believe fairly accurate in its inferences on geopolitical scenarios of the past, present and future. The West has been responsible for much of the world's woes for the best part of half a millennium. India must keep frantically juggling all the balls to keep everybody reasonably satisfied, whilst being firmly neutral in her stand, and pursuing her own interests. India has never invaded another country and we're not about to start aiding the warmongers in regime change or anything else.
Iran's going nuclear per se is touted as the reason for the war that
seems due. We must have serious reservations against USA and Israel
lobbying against Iran. If they(USA and Israel)can't digest Iran going
nuclear as some other nuclear states can they justify their stock of
nuclear weapons? It's ridiculous and insane if USA says they have
stockpiled the nuclear weapons only to "pacify whales in pacific" and
equally imprudent to subscribe to Israel's argument that their nuclear
arms are meant for "fishing in mediterranean" during vacations.
A good article by Prem Shankar Jha to know the impending dangers of a
war and the total hypocrisy of the West. It's shameful that India is not
playing a role that befits its stature in international affairs as a
defender of developing countries in the past. From NDA to Manmohan
Singh, India has been playing second fiddle to the American interests
and ditched many developing countries in several international fora.
If Israel is paranoid about Iran, it is Iran to solely blame for that. Iran has been threatening Israel last few years. Most recently Iranian supreme religious leader compared Iran as a 'cancerous tumor' that need to be cut out. A country threatening the very existence of a tiny nation like Israel appears to be hell bent on getting nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver such as weapon, heck I'd be paranoid too. Israel has no real reason to pick a fight with Israel, it doesn't share a border and neither has a territorial dispute with Israel. If Iran stops threatening Israel I think Israel would be happy to leave Iran alone, but no Iran has to show to the Sunni regimes who is the boss in middle-east and who is the 'real' champion of Muslims. It is Iranian quest to seek dominant power status in the region and Iranian regime's need to have constant foreign 'satan' to keep their people occupied with lest they start questioning the validity of the current regime.
I don't agree with you. Your WW1 analogy is flawed which i have been
reading in western newspapers from the last 2 years. Your article
concludes with fear and suggests No Action. From your fear and
inaction you're feeding a crocodile, hoping it will eat you last.
It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done
better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena;
whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives
valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the
great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy
cause; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high
achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while
daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and
timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.
India should support Israel. It's in their future interest!
I am extremely influenced with this writing and totally agree that the
quest for changing regime with the cover of democratic cause is of no
use and many times backfire. i am not sure Egypt or Libya has been
cornered and are run by raw leaders but efforts to restore the democracy
in Pakistan has been counterproductive for India. And i agree with the
author that a possible Iran war may produce a new breed of Shia jehadis
which will impact the peace of the planet for decades.
The author's understanding of history seems a bit botched. In the buildup to WWI,
all the powers were busy arming themselves to the teeth with the Triple Alliance
setting their sights on the expansion and acquisition of colonies owned by the
Triple Entente nations. Also, the Habsburger empire in Austria-Hungary was not a
minor player even if it didn't quite match Britain.
Whatever their expectations, all powers wanted the war. As for the Sarajevo
incident, every major war starts with a minor incident.
In the present case, the US and EU were not interested nor willing to support the
revolution in Tunisia and Egypt until they realized that not adapting would mean
them losing out influence. What Jha is advocating is not an iota better than the
alternative.
If we truly want to be credible, then we should use any influence we have to put an
end to the massacre of civilians in Syria, with or without regime change. One
doubts however if our cacophonic foreign policy has any relevance.
Everything can't be viewed as a flagship to war like situation or a war. Now, no country can afford war or its long lasting effects on its economy and its people. So these people (either of the said hegemony) may chose for sanctions or some other business means to affect the activity of Iran. In my opinion, they may rest with the idea to go for some international ban or something similar to it.
@Anand,
This is not a "conspiracy theory". It is an opinion, which is why it is in the Opinion section of the newspaper!
"India must speak up for them. As the most open and democratic and the least threatening large country in the world, it has far better credentials to do so than Russia and China. It must not leave this task to them alone."
This line is funny, unless it is substantiated by India's military might. It is universal people will always listen to those with the bigger stick.
The fact that the Mossaddeq government was toppled in Iran in 1953 and replaced by the Shah of Iran (a monarch), along with the US' embrace of countless Arab kings underscores how committed the US is to "democracy"
While some of the examples are way off the mark, overall, this article is well written and concise. While one might want to believe that the Arab spring has been artificially inflated and fueled by the west in the name of installing favorable regimes, that is indeed not the case. The argument that this revolution began only recently and hence is the handiwork of external forces doesn't hide the fact that prior to any storm, there is an intense period of lull. Now that period is over. Its time for the trampled masses to overthrow their despotic masters.History repeats itself. Until the world addresses the genocide being perpetrated against the Palestinians, the middle east will continue to remain a simmering pot.While the Israelis deserve our sympathy and understanding, due to the atrocities inflicted upon their race during the second world war, let us not forget that it doesn't give them the automatic right to usurp the rights of a weaker nation.
Good article, but I think that currently there is nothing called Shia terrorism. I dont recall any Shia attacking civilian centres in the recent past.
Also it is not correct to say that the Syrian Sunnis have been quiet in the past 40 years. There was a Muslim Brotherhood insurgency in the 70s and 80s, to which the Assads responded to brutally with eventS like the Hama massacre.
Good comparison. Moreover, Mr. Prem we need to act depending on what is right and wrong not based on what benefits us. There warlords will return to their nation once the war is over, but we are all neighbours. This war would cost us a century of growth and millions of money. We must revive the non-alignment movement. Indian soldiers are not machines to be deployed for the use of the warlords, their duty is to serve India.
I think Imperialism is the vanguard of Capitalism. The current geopolitical situation just proves it yet again. Atrocities committed by US and its allies in the pretext of War on terror & championship of democracy is in the final analysis an imperialist aggression aimed at securing the domination/profitability of US Inc.
Words Spoken with Wisdom and thorough dissemination of events swirling
around us.
Are we comfortable with a visionless foreign policy manouvres conducted under the "Coalition Dharma" of the G.o.I.The ONLY SILVER SPEK was the decision Not To Stop Buying Oil from Iran and the Correct Decision NOT TO Point Fingers at Iran for the cowardly attack on the Israeli Diplomat.
How long Delhi will be allowed to play truent.India has and must exert its Persuasive Authority to Safeguard Nationaln Intersts and National Soverignity and Do Its Best to DIFFUSE the Fuse others are tring to ignite from both ends.Mr.Jha has produced a thought provoking article .Let us Hope and Pray WISDOM DOMINATE the
thinking of our Govt.Ther is MUCH AT STAKE.
I completely agree with Mr.Jha. This is the time India should show some leadership quality. India should avail the opportunity as the member of Security Council and espouse what is just and not bowing to the hegemonic power.
It may be germane to point out that the US and its European poodles are interested in the middle east only for controlling oil. They have obfuscated the issue by mouthing high sounding paeans on democracy and human rights. Let us not forget the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and Afghans killed over the last 30 years by these very same 'champions' of human rights and democracy. The very same western press which spreads a web of deceitful information on Libya is now working overtime on the dastardliness of the Syrians. Do we actually know the accuracy of these death tolls they are reporting? For all the rabid americophiles and anglophiles trolling these comments, remember Fallujah? Every man and boy over the age of 14 was massacred by US troops in a manner reminiscent of Mylai in Vietnam. Where was the outrage then buddys?
@ Dr Uday , Sir I believe the Author is quite right. Today's hegemony has a different meaning, today a country need not go and capture the other country she only need to install a friendly regime so as to exploit the resources in the name of Multi-national corporations and the Central Bank (google federal bank of US conspiracy). As of today the profits made by the Western and Chinese companies in Africa is much more than the GDP of those African countries. The gulf countries were/are also exploited the same way and since the western nations found opposition here unlike in Africa they wanna do a regime change.The gulf counties which are not strong enough to oppose the technologically advanced west has tuned towards fanatical Islam due to which there will be grave consequences for the world in the future.
If Israel can manufacture nuclear weapons and keep them pointed at
Iran then Iran will definitely build her own nuclear arsenal. If the
US and her allies were a least bit concerned about democracy and human
right they should be in Africa rather than the Gulf. If its terrorism
they are worried about well its their brain child, they reap what they
sow. As for India taking a central role as suggested by the Author, it
would be great if India does take part. We should help in peace by strengthening the non-aligned movement and taking a strong stance
against the west. But still the rise of radical Islam in the Arab
region is a serious concern. In India a majority of the Muslims are
peaceful and development oriented rather than in the Middle east
regions. What we have now is not a WW1 like scenario but actually a
restart of the medieval crusade and jihad and the irony being they are
still fighting for the same place.
Dear Hindu, As a long time reader, I am appalled at this story. Where are your facts?! I find the parallels between WWI and the current global scenario extremely far fetched. I don't believe that even the chest thumping republicans running for presidency of the US want a 'global hegemony'. No one in the US or perhaps even in Israel wants a war with Iran. The US quite clearly opposes unilateral action by Israel. The latter's so called plan to strike Iranian targets was outed to the press and sensationalized, I think, for the right reasons which are bearing fruit.
The Arab spring is a true grassroots revolution. The entire might of the west could not have started something of that nature. Yes the Muslim brotherhood will take Egypt further right. Yes, Ghadaffi should've been tried under law. Democracy is messy especially when nascent. May I remind you of the painful partition period of our history. However, none of these facts support your conclusions.
West has always employed all kind of tactics to dislodge unfavorable
regimes and the same is being seen in Libya, Syria and Iran. Under the
garbs of shrill rhetoric of 'democracy & human rights', they pursue
their strategic interests without ever bothering for a UN consensus.
The role of the UN has just become a mute spectator. In such scenario,
it becomes paramount that a resurgent Russia, ambitious China and
aspirational India, use their political weights to thwart such
malafide attempts of the West. Needless to say, India should safeguard
its core national interests while pursuing diplomacy with the middle
east nations.
The author quoted, 'But only those who are fools twice over can believe that allowing Israel to trigger a ruinous war with Iran will make the world “safer for humanity.”' - its no act of a fool, its the act of money addicted war contractors.
I would really like to thank the hindu for such an outstanding article which opens up the foreign propoganda but the personification provided with the world war was quite fancy and delusional(but has its sense of criticality). Ironically its for our indian foreign ministry who might take such things as non-critical and equivocal.
A well analyzed article. Iran is a good friend of India. Even if we could not support them, we should not join hands with third parties in any aggression to them. Anyway we are the only country in the world who can be ideologically a common friend to Russia, U.S, Isreal and Iran at the same time. Our neutrality is strongly ideological and historical.
Kudos to Mr.Jha for such a balanced article on International tensions.
Israel like all other sensible regimes need to realize the importance of
diplomatic negotiation instead of holier than thou attitude.
Most sensible opinion.But the moot point is if we can resist the Jewish lobby in the US where the president, media, congress and all other establishments are beholden to it.Also,certain internal pressure to join hands with America.
Well said sir.
Prem I think glosses over a very worrying and disturbing development among some of the more extreme Islamic states in the Middle East, and that is an outright belief that Israel has no right to exist. Join this with a rising militaristic Islamic fundamentalism that is anti-West and you have a recipe for imminent disaster. If a World War is going to occur it will be on religious grounds and who knows where this will take us.
The West led by the USA no doubt wants to protect its oil interests in the short term, under the guise of assisting democracy to flourish, but it also wants to ensure that Israel stays strong in the region to act as a counter balance to more extreme hostile states that have expansionary desires. This region has been ruled by violent tribalism for centuries and the concept that might is right is not new. Culturally and politically many of the races in the region are attracted to authoritarian governments and that includes Israel. Prem is right to make a WAKEUP cal
The author portrays a very one-sided picture -- true, the U.S and the
west support the murderous regimes in Saudi and Bahrain. Equally,
Russia and China have been supporting murderers like Kadafi and Assad.
Is there a difference between the "imperialists" and the
"Communists/Socialists"?
We agree with the author in that India should not join any bloc
against Iran (or any other nation). The author concludes that.."... is
to unleash the fury of Shia terrorism as well on the West". Soviet
Russia's ten-year occupation slaughtered millions of Afghans and
terrorism was born at that dreadful decade and now engulfs the whole
world. While castigating the west,the author clumsily tries to hide
this root cause. Public memory is not that short.
One of the most erudite articles I have read on the subject. A war against Iran is the last thing the world needs. However, Iran is hardly the most rational of all countries. It would be a matter of serious concern if Iran is well on its way to build a nuclear device. Any solutions to the build up of tensions in the middle east needs to address this issue.
And of course the Israel-Palestine question. After the horrendous events of WWII, Israel came into existence in that part of the world under the most difficult of circumstances. The Arab neighbors need to once and for all accept Israel in their midst. And Israel needs to shed its paranoia and find a way to strike peace - it had come so close to doing so when Arafat was alive. Can Israel and Palestine exist as secure nations? With borders as defined prior to the 1967 war, Jerusalem being shared.
A well thought out article. However, it falls short on 2 counts:
a) It doesnt address why the author's recommended course of action is good for India's self interest. The author doesnt explain why a Shia blowback on the West is bad for India. We are not the world's moral police.
b) The WW1 analogy is flawed. The warring factions were more or less equally matched militarily, which is what made the war long & bloody. This is certainly not the case today. The West is disproportionately more powerful militarily
Although I agree with the author's view about Israel, clearly this opinion piece has been written by a bureaucrat. He's just looking at the whole situation in Syria & Arab world through the lens of Israel.Take that lens off and you will see the dead bodies of 10,000 Siryans. Now for a minute imagine, if one of them was your son or daughter or brother or sister or mother or father, would you still ascribe to this view.
Everything said and done, how do you tolerate a leader who i skilling his own people? Even one death is one too many to keep someone in power. If one life can be saved by getting Assad out, it is worth it! Mr. Jha, one life is not more precious than the other! To a mother, a child is a child, whether he an autocratic ruler or a daily wager, her pain does not ease by thinking..."oh, my son was worth nothing, so doesn't matter if he died" So, the killer or 10,000 people surely deserves his death, nothing can justify his rule!!! Let's be very clear about that!
Very balanced and pragmatic approach suggested by writer. And, also, equally trying to expose western propaganda. I don't know why international human rights organization choose to forget about Humanitarian crisis erupted during and after crisis in Libiya. This is right time for a neo-emerging country like India to raise its voice against the western wind. But it is not simple as saying. Hitherto world geopolitics is shifted in favor of West. The only effective solution can be made only with the help of BRICS nations together, whose voice can be heard and US+ allies will have to think hard before taking any decision.
In this way hegemony of world power can be limited up to some extent.
This my friend, "In Israeli and American eyes, it is precisely Syria's (and Libya's) capacity for independent action, and the remote possibility that it might become a conduit for Iranian fidayeen to penetrate and attack Israel, which turns it into a threat." is a conspiracy theory ... I wonder what is the threshold The Hindu uses to determine between an informed opinion that can lead my esteemed Daily's center page and a conspiracy theory. I presume a staunch anti-American sentiment is sufficient.
Is there anyway to stop the possibility of massacre?? As i finished
reading this article my minds starts tickling that diplomats across the
county talk about the lots of issues like spread the peace, unity the
world as whole does they mean? are anyone working in that direction??
Here countries are trying to show their powers and find out some middle
paths to stop this possibility of massacre which moving at the head of
involved country.
Prem Shankar Jha is spot on. For the sake not only of itself as an independent voice on the world stage, but also in the interst of others, India must reassert its historic role of leading instead of following. A large Western and Israeli-manufactured arsenal will not impress others, for the last decade's wars and Israeli paranoia have rendered that theory utterly useless. A foreign policy with a degree of moral force and consistency that is credible will do the job.
In today's dynamic and geopolitical scenario India should try to put the
world into good position using its diplomatic intelligence and norms of
new Non-alignment 2.0.
Please Email the Editor