M.D. Nalapat
In 1982, Ariel Sharon decided to intervene on behalf of the Maronite Christians of Lebanon, against the Shia. He gave weapons, training and other requisites to the Gemayel brothers, individuals whose concept of democracy was to send a bullet through the heart of any individual who disagreed with them. Intervening in a civil conflict in any society is fraught with risk, but this is exactly what some powers have repeatedly done.
However, Israel is far more vulnerable than former colonial empires such as the UK and France, in that it is located in a region where the population regards it with distaste, if not hatred. Secondly, it is far smaller than the major NATO powers in both size as well as population. Hence, caution ought to have been exercised rather than a reflexive exercise of power. Sadly for the world’s only Jewish-majority state, neither Sharon nor other Israeli leaders stopped to consider the ill-effects of their bias towards the Maronite Christian leadership. The consequence of Israeli intervention was to deepen the Lebanese sectarian conflict (with Syria and later Iran coming on the side of the embattled Shia) and to make the country the only one in the world that is the target of Shia-based terror groups. The intervention in Lebanon has cost Israel dearly.
These days, after having incorrectly assumed that Muammer Kadhafi will go the way of Hosni Mubarak, both the UK as well as the US are threatening to enforce a No Fly Zone over Libya, thereby seeking to ensure that the particular tribes backed by them have a better chance of dividing Libya into two states, with the oil-rich eastern state coming within the control of groups that are ( at least for now) friendly to the NATO powers. Strangely, even some governments in the region who ought to know better are secretly encouraging both President Obama as well as Prime Minister Cameron to attack Libya. This is a shortsighted view, caused by personal hatred of Colonel Kadhafi and disquiet at the fact that he is a republican rather than a monarch. Indeed, Kadhafihas become as much a figure of hatred within high councils in many Arab countries as was Gamal Abdel Nasser in his time. The difference, of course, is that Nasser was a simple man whose family declined to join in money-making, whereas the Kadhaficlan have become billionaires, thereby provoking anger within their own country. As in the case of the ancient Indian king Dritarashtra, Colonel Kadhafi’s blind spot are his sons. These have masterminded a policy of succumbing to the commands of the NATO powers, only to be abandoned by them at the first sign of an internal threat to the rule of their father.
Showing posts with label Kadhafi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kadhafi. Show all posts
Friday, 11 March 2011
Will China & Russia agree to bomb Libya? (PO)
Labels:
Afghanistan,
China,
european peace university,
France,
Gaggafy,
Hamid Karzai,
India,
Israel,
Kadhafi,
Lebanon,
Libya,
NATO,
Obama,
Pakistan,
Raphel,
Russia,
sharon,
UK
Saturday, 5 March 2011
NATO ditches Moamer Kadhafi (PO)
M D Nalapat
Clients
of banks based in the capitals of countries that are NATO members say
that service is excellent, so long as times are good. There are smiles
and parties, in all of which alcohol and charming company is present in
profusion. However, as soon as times turn bad, these Fair Weather
Friends change, and begin demanding the observance of conditions that
are designed to further push the enterprise into catastrophe. Unlike
banking institutions that have an Asian ethos, which step forward to the
rescue whenever business turns sour, and shows the patience and
understanding needed to conquer the crisis, the NATO-based financial
institutions look only at their own (narrow and short-term) interests,
and frequently convert a manageable crisis into a disaster by their
unsympathetic policies. Sadly, despite knowing this, several
business persons get lured by the superficial charm and seeming
efficiency of such organisations, and flock there in preference to Asian
entities, just as so many millions of consumers in Asia waste huge
amounts of savings in buying super-luxury brands from Europe (even those
where only the name is European, with even the label made in Asia. The
reason for this is the continuing inferiority complex of several High
Net Worth individuals who are secretly ashamed of being Asian, and
compensate by using only European brands, whether these be shoes,
clothes, cars or any other requirement of modern life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)