MD Nalapat
Manipal, India — Once in office, U.S. President Barack Obama apparently decided to abandon his own policy preferences in favor of those of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Given the reluctance of the former president and the current secretary of state to agree to an equal partnership with India, it is no surprise that the past year has seen the killing-off of the tiny shoots of U.S.-India high-tech cooperation promised by former President George W. Bush.This is despite the eagerness of NASA for joint projects with India. The U.S. space agency is aware that it will continue to be commercially outclassed by the European Union unless it ties up with India's Space Research Organization.
The Indians can undertake space launches that are 40 percent cheaper than the EU. Were NASA to outsource some of its hardware and software needs to India, the agency would outclass the Europeans in almost every segment of space research and exploration. This is why successive NASA administrators have – on record – pushed for closer cooperation with India.
However, the death-grip between Washington and Islamabad has thus far sabotaged all such efforts, even though NASA and ISRO have numerous complementarities, such as in hardware and software.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Wednesday, 9 September 2009
More Troops not the Answer in Afghanistan (UPIASIA)
M.D. Nalapat
Manipal, India — During the 1960s, the
United States had a president who did more for the underclass than most of his
predecessors put together. Lyndon Johnson introduced healthcare, civil rights
and other measures designed to provide a level playing field for people of
different classes and colors among the citizenry.
Instead of acclaim, what he got was
unpopularity, forcing him to surrender office after just one term. The reason
was an unpopular war, fought the wrong way – through the insertion of greater
and greater numbers of troops.
U.S. soldiers marauding through their land
converted several hundred thousand South Vietnamese into Viet Cong. As a recent
editorial on Afghanistan in the New York Times put it, Americans too would be
tempted to violence were a strange-looking bunch of aliens to invade and occupy
Oregon.
Those who seek conventional military
solutions to problems within other countries forget that the world is very
different from what it was during the peak years of European colonialism. Then,
mass killings were acceptable. But now, were NATO to repeat in Afghanistan the
tactics of European colonial powers in South America, Africa and Asia, their
own populations would halt such slaughter.
In the age of worldwide cable television,
significant "collateral damage" is unacceptable. This is not a
situation that would have endeared itself to Winston Churchill, the wartime
British prime minister who once favored the bombing of undefended villages in
the Middle East, and looked the other way when more than 6 million Indians died
in 1944 of starvation in the single British-ruled province of Bengal.
Labels:
Afghanistan,
Africa,
al-Qaida,
Asia,
Bengal,
Britain,
Churchillians,
Iraq,
Khalilzad,
Lyndon Johnson,
media,
Middle East,
NATO,
Obama,
Pashtun,
Shiites,
South America,
Taliban,
U.S.
Tuesday, 30 December 2008
The Road to Terror Runs Through Pakistan (UPIASIA)
M.D. Nalapat
Manipal, India — The 1989 defeat of the
Soviet Union in Afghanistan was a tactical victory, but a strategic defeat for
the Western alliance. The induced success of the jihadis gave them a boost of
vainglory, leading to the expansion of their jihad to the West.
Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and
their al-Qaida organization are the unintended consequences of the 1979-87
strategy by former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski and
former director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency William Casey of
funding, training and equipping jihadists to fight a conventional force.
Those lessons are now coming in handy for
terrorists operating in the Afghan countryside, where NATO is floundering in a
manner similar to the 1983-84 travails of the Soviet battalions.
If it can be said that the economic and other
costs of the Afghan war helped push the Soviet Union to collapse, it can also
be argued by those determined to undermine the West that the immense financial
costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – along with the concomitant
speculative rise in commodity prices sparked by the conflicts – are responsible
for the apparent meltdown in Western economies witnessed in the latter half of
2008.
Iraq and Afghanistan are theaters separated
by conditions on the ground. In Iraq, the policy of occupation has led to an
essentially nationalist rebellion against the United States and the United
Kingdom – giving the religious Shiite parties an opportunity to secure the
political space left empty by the secular nationalists’ recourse to insurgency.
Monday, 3 November 2008
Thank God (if) it's Obama (UPIASIA)
M.D. Nalapat
Manipal, India — In 2004, this columnist
annoyed some of his U.S. friends by rooting for George W. Bush for the U.S.
presidency over his rival, John Kerry. The reason was simple: It was the first
presidential poll since 9/11, and a Bush defeat would have given oxygen to the
fanatics now hiding in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border areas. They would have
ascribed a Bush defeat to no factor other than themselves, as would thousands
of others of like mindset.
George W. Bush has his faults – including a
blindness toward the deeds of his financial backers – but his pulverization of
both the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Saddamites in Iraq ensured that
al-Qaida must cross a very high bar to ensure its geographical preservation
before taking on the U.S. homeland again. Unfortunately, the gains in
Afghanistan are being reversed by a disastrous follow-up strategy.
Kerry would almost certainly have been
tested early in his term with a determined probe, if not an actual attack –
though the odds that this war veteran would respond less forcefully than Bush
may have been close to zero.
By this logic, it may seem preferable for
John McCain to become the next U.S. president, for even Barack Obama’s running
mate, Joe Biden, believes that Obama would be tested early in his term, the way
Kerry would probably have been.
Monday, 13 October 2008
Will NATO surrender to the Taliban? (UPIASIA)
M.D. Nalapat
Manipal, India — There are indeed parallels
between the insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban. Both have brown complexions and
prefer to avoid a shave. Both get excitable when challenged, and regard the
United States and its military allies as the enemy. However, that is where the
similarities stop.
The Iraqi insurgents are overwhelmingly
nationalist, usually moderate in their religious views, and have taken to arms
to end what they view as a humiliating occupation of their country. In
contrast, the Taliban are Wahabbi extremists, who enforce a lifestyle that has
nothing in common with the evolving needs of the past 1,000 years. While the
Iraqi insurgents are more than 90 percent Sunni Muslims, the Taliban are nearly
all Pashtuns, although they have abandoned the moderate ethos and customs of
this admirable race in favor of an ultra-Wahabbist lifestyle that places a
premium on personal cruelty.
Once General David Petraeus, as U.S.
commanding general in Iraq, no longer tried to occupy territory and began a
process of handing responsibility to local forces, the anger at the occupation
began to dissipate, and so did the ferocity of the attacks on the United States
and its allies.
As yet, despite the radicalization caused
by the past five years, the insurgents in Iraq are not inclined to impose a
Taliban-like state in Iraq. Should U.S. troops withdraw completely within an
18-month timeframe, Sunni Iraq can yet be prevented from going the way of
Afghanistan and becoming extremist. Just as the Vietnamese ceased to be a
threat to the United States once they got control of their country, so will the
Iraqi insurgents, once U.S. and allied troops leave Iraqi territory.
Labels:
Afghanistan,
al-Qaida,
al-Zawahiri,
India,
Iraq,
military,
militias,
Muslism,
NATO,
Pakistan,
Sunni,
Taliban,
United States
Wednesday, 11 June 2008
Will SOFA make Iraq another Gaza? (UPIASIA)
M.D. Nalapat
Manipal, India — Although the prime
minister of Iraq Nuri al-Maliki has survived physically and politically in his
job, he looks unlikely to withstand the blow being administered to his
administration by U.S. president George Bush. Once the Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) gets signed between the governments in Baghdad and Washington,
not only al-Maliki but also other moderate politicians in Iraq could soon
become history.
From then onwards, public opinion in Iraq
will almost certainly turn in favor of those Shia and Sunni politicians opposed
to the pact, creating more followers of Moctada al-Sadr and the former
Baathists. Although as yet unity between these foes seems unlikely, the
incomprehension of the ground situation in Iraq by Bush and his vice-president
Dick Cheney may ensure an alliance, albeit tactical and temporary between the
Sadirists and the Saddamites.
Just as the effort by the U.S. and the
United Kingdom to ensure continued control of Iraq's oil assets will not
survive an actual assertion of sovereignty in that country by a homegrown
government, nor will the agreement now being foisted on al-Maliki.
Should SOFA be signed in its current form,
within months the insurgency will test new levels even while the democratic
political space gets evacuated by moderates, in view of public anger at the
concessions they would have made to the occupying army.
Labels:
Bush,
Cheney,
India,
Iraq,
saddamites,
U.S.,
United Kingdom
Monday, 17 March 2008
Tibet's challenge to Bush-Cheney (UPIASIA)
M.D. Nalapat
Manipal, India — Just as any CEO would,
George W. Bush and his CFO Dick Cheney have focused on ensuring as high a
monetary return as possible to those who invested in their campaigns. Whether
it is the oil companies based out of Houston, Texas, or corporations like
Halliburton, those who put their dollars behind the Bush-Cheney ticket have
been rewarded beyond their most optimistic calculations.
The downside has been a recession caused by
the financial cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined with the higher
oil prices generated by the geopolitical experiments of the current U.S.
administration and the get-rich-anyhow outlook of financial institutions. Had
the U.S. economy not been faced with these multiple shocks, stock and housing
prices would most likely have continued to rise, thereby bailing out those
institutions that advanced funds to subprime borrowers.
However, while individual corporations have
benefitted exponentially from 2001 to 2008, the bulk of U.S. consumers have had
to be content with modest or negative gains, thereby leading to the present
loss of confidence in the future of what will, for another generation at least,
be the primary economic engine of the globe.
After witnessing the colonial-style
scramble for profits from the oil sector in Iraq -- which in its transparent
rapacity most resembles Belgian policy in the Congo during much of the past
century -- as well as the manner in which some corporate and other entities
have leveraged their political connections to secure monopolies in Iraq and
Afghanistan, savers in East and South Asia as well as Russia have steadily lost
confidence in the integrity of the U.S. dollar and shifted to the euro. This
has contributed to a slide in the greenback's value that may wipe away any
gains in the anemic anti-inflation measures taken by the U.S. Federal Reserve
thus far, and exacerbate the decline in both business as well as consumer
confidence.
Monday, 10 March 2008
Malaysia's 'Endangered' Majority (UPIASIA)
M.D. Nalapat
Manipal, India — Malaysia's Prime Minister
Abdullah Badawi made the worst call of his political career by calling a
general election a full year before it was due, believing that international
economic uncertainty was likely to send the economy southwards and ethnic
tensions were at risk of escaping from the band-aid applied to them.
He therefore decided on a March 2008 poll,
but Saturday's loss of 60 of the 199 parliamentary seats that his Barisan
Nasional Party had won in 2004 has weakened not only his government but his
leadership over a party unhappy with his "bureaucratic" style.
Sadly, the mild-mannered, moderate Badawi
is less the culprit than he is the victim of the Malay supremacist policies
followed by his party since 1957. These policies have implied that the
multiracial, multifaith country's Malay majority of 60 percent was an
endangered species in need of protection against the rest of the population,
including the one-tenth that are ethnic Indians and one-fifth of Chinese descent.
The "bumiputra" policies followed
by Malaysia's rulers since the 1950s have been sharpened over the decades, so
that in effect today non-Muslims and non-Malays have a second-class status in
the country. As occurred in the Indian mutiny of 1857, it was a question of
faith that ignited the Hindu firestorm on Nov. 25, 2007, that led to the
present electoral debacle for Badawi -- after Hindu temples were bulldozed to
make way for roads, malls and housing sites.
Such contempt for the institutions of their
faith sparked anger among the Hindus of Malaysia. Although Muslims of Indian
origin kept away from the protests that followed, the 90 percent of the
Malaysian Indian community that are Hindu was alienated from the ruling party
by the brutal police repression let loose against peaceful protestors in scenes
reminiscent of the days of the freedom struggle in India. Several of the
protestors were jailed, and many are still in prison on the absurd charge of
terrorism.
Labels:
Abdullah Badawi,
Barisan Nasional Party,
BNP,
chinese,
hindu,
Iraq,
islamic party,
Khomenists,
Mahathir Mohammad,
Malaysia,
Middle East,
muslim,
Saudi Arabia,
supremacy,
Wahhabi
Monday, 3 September 2007
Unloosing the Shiite Genie (UPIASIA)
M.D. Nalapat
Manipal, India — If protecting the homeland
is among the primary responsibilities of a government, attempting to change the
distribution of power within another country may not always be congruent with
such an objective.
Given the state of conflict between Israel
and the Palestinian Liberation Organization in 1982, there was a compelling
case for the Israel Defense Forces to enter Lebanon and take out Palestinian
assets that were being deployed against the stability and survival of the state
of Israel. However, there was none for attempting to bolster the position of
the Maronite Christians vis-Ã -vis their Shiite opponents. In particular, the
leading Maronite Gemayel family was known for the use of methods that could
have been developed in a concentration camp.
Since 1982, the flow of covert and other
support to the Gemayels from Israel grew to a level that infuriated the Shiites
as well as the family's many Maronite critics. By 1987, an isolated -- indeed
hated -- PLO was able to secure the backing of key elements among the Shiite
factions in Lebanon, despite being overwhelmingly Sunni.
From that time to the present, Israel has
enjoyed the distinction of being the only non-Muslim country targeted by
militant Shiites -- a group far more virulent and effective, albeit as yet
limited in strength and scope, than even Wahabbi extremists such as members of
al-Qaida. Over the past two decades, Israel has concentrated its attention and
resources on tackling a foe that went into action as a result of its own
intervention policy in Lebanon.
Monday, 23 July 2007
The Arranged Marriage Between India and the United States (UPIASIA)
M.D. Nalapat
Manipal, India — Unlike in the West, where
couples meet, mate and then decide on marriage, in India it is parents, family
and friends that substitute for Cupid. Not accidentally, few such pairings are
driven by romantic considerations. Instead, an assessment is made of how the
two families can benefit from the match, rather than simply the individuals on
whose behalf a decision on pairing is being taken.
Unsurprisingly, the choice of Mom, Dad,
Uncle and Family Friend is seldom that which either the groom or the bride
would have selected, had they the right to do so. Interestingly, most such
marriages work, usually much better than in societies where personal choice is
given precedence over family needs.
Over the past five years the United States
and Indian militaries have been discovering each other, much like a couple
brought together under family pressure. Fresh from their interaction with
counterparts in Pakistan -- whose military goes ape at the prospect of a
U.S.-India alliance -- and loaded with tales originating from the time of the
Indian-phobic Winston Churchill about the " unreliable" Indians,
those within the U.S. military that began dealing with the Indian army, navy
and air force came prepared to dislike their new contacts.
If the Americans were distant, the Indians
were paranoid, and several promising careers within the three services were
blighted on the charge of "fraternization" with a U.S. officer,
usually female. Not merely more private actions, but even an exchange of
"inappropriate" emails was cause for retribution. Only very recently
has the Indian establishment come to accept that a consensual relationship
between two adults, each of whom may wear the uniform of what is today an
allied country, need not be treated as a security disaster.
Labels:
air force,
Bill Clinton,
George W. Bush,
India,
Iraq,
Kashmir,
marine corps,
Middle East,
military,
navy,
Peoples Liberation Army,
southeast asia,
United States,
universities
Monday, 18 June 2007
The United States should be Quadricultural, not Unipolar (UPIASIA)
M.D. Nalapat
Manipal, India — By granting itself a
patent on individual freedom combined with democratic elections, the West has
persuaded itself that it is seen as a benign entity in the rest of the world --
almost all of which decades ago was occupied and governed by European countries
intent on using native resources to promote their own interests.
However, the return of Western soldiery to
Afghanistan and Iraq has caused formerly colonized countries to fear that once
again they are at risk of occupation. Both Afghan President Hamid Karzai and
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki have zero control over the militaries
swarming across their respective countries, or over many of the functions
normally associated with sovereignty. "Advisors" in both Kabul and
Baghdad have the final say, a fact that is not hidden from the local
populations.
Today, NATO forces in Afghanistan and
Coalition troops in Iraq are ensuring a steady increase in the insurgency.
George W. Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Angela Merkel and other Western
leaders have together performed a miracle -- they have made the Saddamites
popular in Iraq and the Taliban recover its resonance in Afghanistan.
Because of the melding of the identities of
the United States and the European Union into a single "Western"
entity, Bush rarely ventures beyond Europe -- and countries with
European-origin majorities -- in securing military allies for his numerous military
sallies into distant lands. Within the United States, only the west coast has
succeeded, to a limited extent, in freeing itself of the delusion that the
United States is a European country transplanted across the Atlantic. The South
and East are in thrall to a concept of nationhood with a European identity at
its core -- a concept expressed in the many writings of Samuel Huntington.
Labels:
Afghanistan,
Africa,
al-Maliki,
India,
Iraq,
Karzai,
Mandela,
NATO,
United States
Monday, 12 March 2007
Losing Minds and Hearts in Iraq (UPIASIA)
M.D. Nalapat
Manipal, India — India has been at the
business end of jihadi-funded insurgency since 1981, the year in which
Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) began to organize a
"Khalistan" movement that would in a couple of years launch a terror
campaign in India's Punjab State. Although local members of the Sikh community
declined to come on board, enough funds were raised from ethnic Sikhs in the
United States and Canada to provide the funding for a vicious struggle that
lasted till the mid-1990s.
The Khalistan movement blended seamlessly
with the other jihadist operation in Kashmir, an insurgency set off by those
who returned to the Indian-held part of the state after receiving training in
Pakistan from 1982 to 1988. It is still smoldering, and has thus far cost
73,000 lives, mostly in the killings of Muslims by Wahabbis.
In 1989 the USSR was defeated in
Afghanistan and the ISI transferred its attention to Kashmir. Unfortunately for
them, New Delhi proved a tougher proposition than Moscow, the reason being the
manner in which the security forces conducted anti-jihadist operations. Given
their low level of financial resources, these had perforce to depend on the
"software" of psychological warfare against the jihadis, placing emphasis
on changing of mindsets and preventing of unity between those disaffected with
Indian rule.
In contrast, the United States has thrown
into battle in Iraq a (usually wasted) flood of material resources, with far
less success than the Indian armed forces have shown in Kashmir, where the
jihadis have been beaten to the ground and are now desperately clutching at
diplomacy to rescue themselves from the pit they have been pushed into.
Friday, 7 April 2006
India's Nuclear Sell Out (UPI)
M.D. Nalapat
MANIPAL, India, April 7 (UPI) -- If his
July 18, 2005 deal with U.S. President George W. Bush is implemented, Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will ensure that India would never, at least in
the next half-century, rival China as a technological or military superpower.
The act of scientific strangulation in
the Singh-Bush nuclear agreement would rapidly push India downwards to the
level of Lesotho and Botswana in nuclear and missile science. After half a
century of protecting its nuclear technology, the country would slide into the
category of "recipient countries" explicitly marked out for it by
Bush. As such, India would no longer be permitted to even reprocess uranium on
its own, but would have to depend on "advanced countries" such as
Japan and Germany for this essential process. Ironically, at present India is
far ahead of both in nuclear science.
Just as others did before him, Manmohan
Singh has made the mistake of believing the temporary backing of the U.S.
bureaucracy to be sufficient protection from the angry reaction of his own
people, once the consequences of his actions become clear. However, in this
case, the price for such misdeeds is likely to be paid not by Singh personally
but by the Congress Party, which will henceforward be seen as having betrayed
its nationalist past.
Labels:
China,
George W. Bush,
Hussein,
IAEA,
India,
Iraq,
Manmohan Singh,
NATO,
Russia,
Singh,
U.S.,
United States
Tuesday, 14 March 2006
Emasculating Nuclear India (UPI)
M.D. Nalapat
NEW DELHI, March 13 (UPI) -- There is
zero doubt that India and the U.S. are natural partners. Steady migration to
the U.S., the ever-denser interlinking of the hi-tech industry in both
countries, and common threats from religious fundamentalism and political
authoritarianism mandate that Washington and New Delhi forge an alliance that
is as close as that between the U.S. and the UK.
However, the caveat to this is that such
a partnership can only be on terms that are the same as what the U.S. accords
to the U.K. In brief, the U.S. has first to accept India as a nuclear weapons
state that deserves permanent membership in the U.N. Security Council.
Unfortunately, almost all the formulae trotted out by the "South
Asia" brigade in U.S. think tanks and other centers of influence such as
the State Department implicitly or otherwise seek to "engage" India
on terms that would, if accepted, result in an emasculation of the world's most
populous democracy.
The proposed Nuclear Deal falls squarely
in this category, and will, if sought to be implemented, push official
U.S.-India relations back to the frost of the Cold War period.
Indians love flattery, and often
surrender substance in exchange for a verbal pat on the head. Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh, by education as well as by his experience in international
institutions, is predisposed to uncritical acceptance of the standard Western
worldview, which implicitly sees India as a juvenile power needing
mother-henning, and definitely not mature enough to be trusted with grown-up
implements such as nuclear weapons and their associated delivery systems. This
mistrust of the country's maturity -- despite New Delhi's impeccable
non-proliferation record to date -- infuses the terms of the deal that has been
agreed to by the Sonia Gandhi-led coalition government, hungry as always for
formal acknowledgment of its improving status. Were the agreement to be
implemented, India would almost immediately lose its chance to switch to the
thorium cycle, and within 12 years would find its tiny arsenal of nuclear
weapons depleted to irrelevance.
Labels:
Bush,
China,
France,
IAEA,
India,
Iraq,
Manmohan Singh,
New Delhi,
North Korea,
Nuclear,
Pakistan,
Scandinavians,
United States
Tuesday, 31 May 2005
Oil Conspiracy Theory (UPI)
M.D. Nalapat
MANIPUR, India, May 31 (UPI) -- Nature
and the "street" both abhor a vacuum, and even after Sept. 11, 2001,
it is those active in the "War of Revenge Against the Crusades" who
are more adept at crafting tales designed to link the United States with the
unemployment, rage and perception of helplessness that provides recruits to the
jihad.
While conspiracy theories that seek to
"prove" that the United States -- together with those familiar
villains, the "Zionists" -- is engaged in a war against Islam, thus
far such street gossip has permeated only the Muslim countries, principally
Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan. The rest of the world has not been infected
with this virus.
Indeed, a case can be made that the
United States is more popular today in the poorer parts of the globe than it is
in Europe. Unlike the period from the 1950s to the 1980s, when the United
States was the target of the resentments and insecurities felt by those
recently freed from colonization, from the time cable television spread in the
mid-1980s,"street" perceptions of the United States outside the
Muslim world have improved steadily. In the words of Jairam Ramesh, an Indian
economist, while the cry may still be "Yankee, go home!", to this is
added, "but take me with you."
For a superpower, the United States has
been demonstrably inept in factoring in psychological attitudes and reflexes in
countries visited by U.S. "experts" only in the safety of
air-conditioned hotel and conference rooms. Thus, in Iraq the United States
appointed an American "administrator" and Iraqi "advisers,"
when common sense would have indicated that it ought to have been the other way
around.
Labels:
barrel,
Bulgaria,
Bush,
Cheney,
Europe,
great britain,
Hussein,
Iran,
Iraq,
Khalilzad,
Muslism,
Negroponte,
oil,
Paul Bremer,
prices,
United Nations,
United States
Wednesday, 23 March 2005
Iran's Unlikely Champion (UPI)
M.D. Nalapat
MANIPAL, India, March 23 (UPI) -- Unlike
its Sunni counterpart, the theology of which has often been used by autocrats
to profess a divine sanction for their license, Shiite Islam had at its
theological core the concept of the separation of mosque from state.
The philosophy was clear that until the
12th imam of legend returned from his occultation to take over governance, the
clergy were to leave temporal matters alone. It took nearly a thousand years
for this tradition to get diluted when, in 1501, the Safavids installed Shiite
Islam as the religion of the state.
Almost a half a century later, the Shiite
tradition of separation of temporal from spiritual got wholly subverted by
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who implemented his innovation of a
"Velayet-i-Faqih." He -- in the same way as Sunni rulers -- had
"divine" sanction to run the administration the way he saw it. This
perversion of genuine Shiite tradition has resulted in a crisis of identity in
Iran, where those who can be accurately described as "Khomeinist"
rather than Shiite or even Muslim rule in the name of the creed they have
rendered unrecognizable from its roots.
Given the tension that has existed
between Shiite and Sunni Islam from the death of the Prophet Mohammad in AD
632, it is remarkable how closely "Khomeinism" follows in its
chemistry and practices a like perversion of Sunni Islam that was invented by
Abdul Wahhab, who died in the 18th century, and has now supplanted Islam as the
state religion of Saudi Arabia.
Wednesday, 2 March 2005
Not Our Problem (UPI)
M.D. Nalapat
MANIPAL, India, March 1 (UPI) -- The
Maldives is a tiny group of islands nestling in the Indian Ocean that got into
the news only because of the Dec. 26 tsunami. For years it has been the focus
of concerted NGO action designed to convert the regime into a genuine
democracy, with political parties and a Westminster-style parliament where the
two sides glower across the aisle at each other.
India has shown that multi-party democracy
can work even in conditions of illiteracy and poverty. The country borrowed
heavily from British political institutions, even while retaining most of the
administrative and judicial infrastructure left behind in 1947.
Another country that could succeed in
such a transformation is Iraq, which has a sizeable middle class and a national
consciousness based on the centuries of civilization in the region, beginning
with Mesopotamia. To interpolate from this that a similar graft would succeed
in the very different scale of the Maldives may be a mistake.
A rough rule of thumb would be that it
takes a minimum population of 5 million in order to create the diversity that
is called for by a multi-party democratic system. A lesser number would not be
able to sustain the spread of debate and contain it within bounds that do not
result in widening fissures within the society.
To take the example of the Maldives
again, it is a fact that the Maymoon Abdul Gayoom regime is paternalistic and
lacks a significant machinery to monitor and respond to public opinion. It is
equally a fact that the Maldives is a moderate state with an overwhelming
Muslim majority, and that President Gayoom has thus far succeeded in keeping in
check Islamists funded by Pakistani, Malaysian and Saudi Arabian religious
charities. It is this visible secularism that has motivated such intervention,
which has succeeded in creating a small but very vocal group of democracy
activists that are calling for an Islamist state.
Labels:
Afghanistan,
al-Qaida,
Bill Clinton,
Bush,
Europe,
Indian Ocean,
Iraq,
Islam,
Maldives,
nationalism,
NATO,
NGOs,
Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia,
Shia,
Sunni,
Taliban,
tsunami,
U.S.
Friday, 23 April 2004
Sabahism, not Wahabbism (UPI)
M.D. Nalapat
MANIPAL, India, April 23 (UPI) -- Kuwait
is a tiny sliver of land sandwiched between the three regional giants of Iraq,
Iran and Saudi Arabia. Unlike the three, the country is free from extremism and
is showcasing economic rather than religious or ethnic issues to underline its
identity. Local women go about the shopping malls in denims, although the emir
of Kuwait has not been able to persuade Parliament to give voting rights to
this better half of the Kuwaiti population. But it is to be hoped that the next
elections will witness both women candidates as well as voters.
The ruling family in Kuwait, the
Al-Sabah, are close friends of their Saudi cousins, the Al-Saud. However, the
two dynasties have followed entirely different paths in managing their
respective countries. For one, the Al-Sauds have been much more proliferant,
now numbering an estimated 27,000 -- not counting more distant relatives. They
have also taken seriously the message implicit in the very naming of their
country after themselves, helping themselves to 36 percent of the total wealth
of the kingdom, leaving the rest mostly to the families close to the court.
Many Saudi citizens -- especially in the
Shiite east -- enjoy neither running water nor electricity. In contrast, Prince
Abdel Aziz Al-Saud, the favorite son of King Fahd, has just done his bit for
reducing unemployment in the kingdom by building a new palace in Riyadh at a
reported cost of $670 million. No 30-year-old can be content with just a single
home, so the austere Saudi royal is building another palace in Jeddah, although
this will cost a mere $540 million.
The skies over Europe are filled with
private aircraft ferrying the Al-Sauds from one hotspot to the other, and the
boutique stores in Paris and London would close down but for free-spending
Saudi princes and princesses. Sadly for the Saudi people, such largesse does
not extend to home.
Monday, 23 June 2003
U.S. losing Mind War in Iraq
M.D. Nalapat
MANIPAL, India, June 23 (UPI) -- After
World War I, the consequences of the Versailles "peace" were the rise
of the National Socialists and World War II. That conflict was followed by the
Marshall Plan, the democratization of Germany, Italy and Japan and their
bonding with the United States and Britain into both a security alliance as
well as an economic partnership. Both British values and American culture
permeated the three former Axis powers, vacuuming away the hostility in the
minds of their populations to the victors. Today, some Germans (as indeed many
Britons and more than a few French) may be anti-Enduring Freedom. Almost none
is anti-American except in a narrow political sense.
Why did the peace imposed after World War
II create a benign backlash while that which followed World War I create the
Hitler-Tojo-Mussolini monster? The reason was that conquest was achieved in the
1914-1918 conflict only on the ground, over physical territory. In the second,
it won over the mind of the "enemy" population pool as well. It can
be argued the extremely liberal treatment given to the Germans after they had
backed the most loathsome dictatorship in history, a policy of forgiveness that
took within its fold more than 95 percent of those who had been active in the
NSDAP, helped avoid a second Hitler. It is now clear the formal respect paid to
the emperor of Japan and to the non-militaristic aspects of the culture of that
civilization, together with ruthless MacArthurite democratization and
integration into the modern economy, transformed a power that had been first
suspicious of and then hostile to the West (at least for the previous two
centuries) into a reliable ally, despite the horror of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Forget that Operation Enduring Freedom
ought to have been conducted by giving equal billing to a "Free Iraq"
leadership as was given to U.S. participants. A Free Iraqi general conducting
news briefings jointly with the non-telegenic Tommy Franks would have had an
effect similar to that created by projecting Charles De Gaulle as the heroic
leader of a horde of "Free French" when the reality in
German-occupied France was that the level of resistance was far lower than that
found in the eastern theatres, while active collaboration was high. The
"Free French" were, however, wonderful in cinema newsreels and on the
British Broadcasting Corp. and Voice of America, which was enough to preserve French
pride into the postwar period, avoiding the kind of backlash that made Paris
craft the Versailles Treaty.
Labels:
Afghanistan,
Bush,
France,
Germany,
Hussein,
Iraq,
saddamites,
Shiites,
Sunnis,
U.S.,
Wahhabi
Saturday, 26 April 2003
Why not an Asian NATO? (UPI)
M.D. Nalapat
MANIPUR, India, April 26 (UPI) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other war planners in the Pentagon may bridle at the comparison, but the reality is that the U.S. military establishment follows the example set by the State Department in at least one crucially wrong assumption: the belief that European traditions and analytical models can suffice to analyze Asia.
MANIPUR, India, April 26 (UPI) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other war planners in the Pentagon may bridle at the comparison, but the reality is that the U.S. military establishment follows the example set by the State Department in at least one crucially wrong assumption: the belief that European traditions and analytical models can suffice to analyze Asia.
After all, since Asia was carved up among
different European countries until a few decades back, clearly that meant the
Europeans knew their way around.
However, times have changed, and today's
Asia is a fusion of local with Western mindstreams that paradoxically make the
peoples of the world's biggest continent more difficult to understand by
Western scholarship.
An example is Iraq. Several Asian
scholars -- including the writer, in these columns -- had warned that the
absence of involvement of local anti-Saddam Hussein militias and the prominence
given to the British -- the former colonizers of Iraq and therefore a people
the locals are understandably sensitive about -- by U.S. war planners was
likely to lead to a bulge in support for the Saddam regime, fighting what is
perceived as a new Western war of conquest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)