Some serious questions raised by the Wikileaks saga

A first look at Julian Assange does not reveal much about the man. Indeed he looks like any other blonde westerner in his late-30s. But thanks to his website wiki leak’s revelations about American diplomatic activities, this man has certainly become the no.1 Target in the eyes of World’s most powerful nation. Influential commentators like Jonah Goldberg in the USA have already started calling for Assange’s head.
After going through all these events, I have some questions to ask to my readers.

The first question is regarding the claim of the Western world to call itself “an open-minded, progressive society “. We have seen the Western pundits over the years calling the Chinese, the Russians or some of the Muslim-majority countries (all those countries who oppose American policies in their regions) as “close-minded, backward societies” since according to these Western pundits , these countries do not tolerate descent or difference of opinion. People like Liu Xiaobo, Salman Rushdie, Taslima Nasreen or Alexander Solzhenitsyn; are termed as “pioneers”,” freedom-fighters “or “liberals” and prizes like the “noble peace prize” or “knighthood” are bestowed upon these individuals since according to the Western scholars these people “showed their guts in fighting against oppression and tyranny”. Now if we take a very close look at the kinds of statements some of those Western commentators and government spokespeople have been making about Assange since the beginning of this Wiki leaks episode , one wonders whether the claim of the those very same Western pundits to call themselves “open-minded , enlightened” is justified or not. After all “enlightened and open-minded people” should have broad-mind to accept something even if they did not like it. The behavior of these Western critics of Assange just does not fit into that “open-minded, liberal” category. Death threats have been made against Assange, Interpol has raised a worldwide arrest warrant against this man and attempts have been made to take down the Wiki leaks website itself. So the question is if the “liberal, enlightened” Western World cannot tolerate Julian Assange then whether it is justified in calling itself “liberal, enlightened or open-minded or not”. Now will Assange get a noble prize for 2011? I doubt it.

The second is regarding the justification of the actions perpetrated by the Western world when it came to Julian Assange.The information that Wikileaks has provided is not “world-changing” i.e. the information is basically low-level American diplomats sending some information back home. These documents do contain whatever these diplomats as well as some foreign leaders think about some issues but they do not contain any special information like a specific political or military plan or strategy which if leaked can significantly impact events in a global way. So the question which should be asked is whether the Western particularly the American government is justified in hounding Julian Assange the way they have done.

I leave it to my readers to answer these two questions.

Advantage China in the new great game of the century

Before I begin this, I would like to ask a question to my readers, what was the biggest factor behind the victory of the British in both the World Wars? The answer is simple but it might astonish you. The answer is: the British controlled the Suez Canal throughout the two world wars.

Let me tell my readers, the biggest driving factor in winning any war is a steady flow of energy supplies. The phrase “steady flow of energy supplies” means that you need a reliable source from where you get your energy i.e. oil and gas and a stable and secure infrastructure for channeling those resources into your wartime economy as well as your military machines that desperately need those, throughout the war.

This was the case in both the two world wars. The British through their effective control of the Suez Canal controlled those crucial energy supply routes which fed their large navies and strong military machines in both those two wars. In those days Suez Canal used to be the biggest supply route for transporting vital energy resources to Britain.
Apart from that, Britain was in control of vital energy extracting sources at that time. The biggest British company as the time (as well as the largest British taxpayer) was Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (which would later be known as British Petroleum or BP). The company through its absolute monopoly in the Iranian oil industry controlled some of the biggest oil fields in the world at the time. The British government was one of the biggest stakeholders in the company at the time. In short with her control of Iranian oil as well as the Suez Canal, the British secured a constant a steady source of energy for her military machines throughout the two world wars, which proved to be the key regarding British victory in both those two World Wars.

If we have a look at our time, we see patterns of a new great game emerging out in our world. The original great game was played between the Russian Czars and British governor-generals in India for strategic control of the sub-continent and central Asia. The new great game is being played for the control of the extremely vital and quickly dwindling natural resources in the World. For the benefit of my readers let us assume that the two main contenders in this great game are China and India.

Before I go into detail let me share with my readers some facts:

Rank Country
1 Saudi Arabia
2 Canada
3 Iran
4 Iraq
5 Kuwait
6 Venezuela
7 United Arab Emirates
8 Russia
9 Libya
10 Nigeria


Table1: Top 10 countries in the World with biggest proven Oil Reserves
(Source: CIA-fact book 2009)

Rank Country
1 Russia
2 Iran
3 Qatar
4 Turkmenistan
5 Saudi Arabia
6 United States
7 United Arab Emirates
8 Nigeria
9 Venezuela
10 Algeria

Table2: Top 10 countries in the World with biggest proven Natural Gas Reserves
(Source: CIA-fact book 2009)

These two above tables would help my readers to understand the potential energy resources in the World, the new competitors in the new great game are playing for.

Now let us have a look at what the Indians and the Chinese have been doing lately in this great game. Let me start with China.

1. Bypassing the sea lanes: China just overtook the USA as the biggest energy consumer in the World. China has been growing at a rate of 10% for most of the last two decades and it wants to continue on that path. Since most of China’s energy trade goes through two major international shipping lanes i.e. the Strait of Malacca and the Strait of Hormuz and both these two shipping lanes are heavily influenced and controlled by American navy ships. China is yet to have the same naval power to overwhelm American navies in these two areas. Now in a situation of war, China risks of losing control of its most important energy supplies in adversarial naval attacks on Chinese ships going through these two above mentioned shipping lanes. So the Chinese have come up with another idea. They want to bypass these naval shipping lines altogether. The Chinese are going about creating overland pipelines which will bring oil and natural gas to China from central Asian countries like Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan etc. China is also collaborating with the Russian federation to bring natural gas from Russia to China, through overland oil pipelines. So when all these oil pipelines go operational the Chinese have got the proverbial Plan-B in place if the adversary closes the sea-lanes in the time of a conflict.

2. Diversifying the sources: China does business with all types of regimes whom the rest of the world might not consider too highly. Chinese are talking about purchasing oil from countries as far as Venezuela in Latin America as well as countries like Sudan, Nigeria and Angola in Africa. Angola is China’s biggest supplier of oil in Africa. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Myanmar’s military junta whom the rest of the world considers as “rouge states” are only too happy to sell their oil and gas to China. In fact, Iran is the second largest energy supplier for China. When Americans and the Europeans put heavy economic sanctions on Iran, they put their own energy companies out of business from that resource-rich country. That is the gap, Chinese are too eager to fill in. A crucial example of this is the investments in Iran’s South Pars gas field. This Iranian natural gas field is believed to be the largest of its kind in the World. In May, 2010 Iran invited companies from all over the world to invest in this venture for its development. Western companies walked out of the bidding process fearing American sanctions. This enabled the Chinese national Oil Corporation to purchase the exclusive rights along with some other companies to develop this field. This was another feather in Chinese cap. In short , any regime, irrespective of political inclination (whether it is a tyranny , democracy , autocracy or a military dictatorship) in the world which has got oil and gas in its country , can count on the Chinese to come to its capital with big , fat checkbooks. All this ensures much diversified sources of energy for China.

3. Building in the alliances: The Chinese are building infrastructure in important, strategic places which would help them to transport oil and gas to their country. China is looking at building ties with countries which may not have too much oil or gas but they are situated in very key geographical locations of the globe. A case in point is the port of Gwadar, built at Pakistan by the joint effort of Pakistan and China. This port is strategically situated right at the head of the Strait of Hormuz. A naval presence at this port would help the Chinese to monitor any strategic adversarial activities in the Strait of Hormuz. Apart from the strategic significance there are plans to connect this port with the Karakoram highway in northern Pakistan which would help to link the port to China itself. This could allow crucial energy supplies from Iran coming to Gwadar and then going to China through this route. Chinese are also building similar infrastructure in places like Hambantota in Sri Lanka and Chittagong in Bangladesh which would help them to keep track of the situations in the Strait of Malacca. Apart from that China is also talking about strategic alliances with key countries like Turkey. This week, very influential foreign minister of Turkey, Ahmet Dovutoglu was in China, discussing among other things the creation of a joint strategic group involving China, Turkey, Iran and Pakistan to face common strategic adversaries in the coming years.

4. Wooing the Chinese: One interesting case to note here is that since China is the biggest consumer of oil and gas in the World, now all producers of oil and gas are competing for this biggest market. They are coming up with all sorts of ideas to woo the Chinese. This is like all the rich boys in the town trying to woo the most beautiful girl in the town. A case in point is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia which happens to be world’s largest producer of oil is in competition with Iran for the leadership of the Muslim world. Recently, the Saudis offered the Chinese to same amount of oil as Iran (China’s second largest oil supplier) in much lesser price. (source: http://milfuegos.blogspot.com/2010/10/pepe-escobar-pipelineistans-new-silk.html )Chinese can only enjoy the situation as it goes. The Americans who were the biggest energy consumers of the world, until now, could have enjoyed the same wooing but for their refusal to do business with important energy producing countries like Iran, Iraq and Venezuela.

To summarize all of these efforts, the Chinese have got diverse energy sources as well as infrastructure put in place to mitigate any emergency including a confrontation with any potential adversary. They are building strategic alliances and the largest oil producers in the World are eager to enter into the lucrative Chinese market.

Now let us have a look at what we have been doing on the “energy security” front. Before I go on to details, let us share some numbers here. India’s imports in the April-August quarter of 2010 grew by 33% to result in a trade deficit of $56 billion dollars. (My readers please note that the Chinese trade surplus grew by about 29% during the same period) This high import bill was a result of a 31.7% growth in the oil imports. Now when our prime minister talks about growing like 10% each year, we need more energy supply and since an overwhelming portion (about 1/3-rd) of our total energy consumption is from oil and gas (despite those loud slogans of clean nuclear energy and “Go green”) imports (70% of our total oil consumption is imported primarily from the gulf region), we can safely assume that this will continue to grow. This means that while we talk about growing at over 10%, our trade deficits are already growing at more than 10% each year.

Now let us look at what policies we have been following to check these facts.

1. Low Diversification: Our top 5 oil importers are all from the Western Asia region with Saudi Arabia being the biggest of them all. Our natural gas consumption is minimal compared to our oil imports. In the past few years, we have tried to venture into countries like Sudan, Myanmar, Turkmenistan and Iran but our efforts have always been defeated by the Chinese with their higher bidding capabilities. At this moment there is no visible effort by the Indian government or the Indian companies to venture into important oil producing countries like Iran, Venezuela and Russia for the same.


2. Death of IPI, birth of IPC: My readers will be familiar of the oil and gas pipeline called “IPI” (Iran-Pakistan-India) which was supposed to bring the natural gas from Iran to Pakistan into India. This project was also hailed as “peace pipeline” by the media. But thanks to our commitments towards our American friends, we shelved that project. Now this year, the Iranians and Pakistanis declared that they will go ahead with their part on the pipeline irrespective of Indian participation. Now China is only waiting on the wings to join in the process. So very soon we might see IPI being converted into IPC (Iran-Pakistan-China) pipeline. This would not only bring much needed gas from Iran to China via Pakistan but this would be the beginning of a strategic axis which may be of great geo-political and geo-strategic significance in future.


3. Strategic alignment: Since the signing of the ground-breaking Indo-US civilian, nuclear deal there has been a lot of talk circulating in the Indian media about India aligning itself with the USA against China. Aligning ourselves with the US means not only antagonizing China but antagonizing some of the key energy producers in the World like Iran and Venezuela. Let us face this fact; historically we always had a strong relationship with Iran in terms of energy supplies.(Last year Iran supplied 16% of our total imported oil) Iran has got a lot of oil and gas but it lacks the technical capabilities in infrastructure and refining capacities due to American economic sanctions. Indian companies like say Reliance who are world beaters in terms of oil and gas refinery technology, could have had in Iran, an extremely lucrative market. But thanks to our commitment towards our American friends we have given up that market. Very recently it was announced that Indian companies are curtailing their investments in that country.

4. Greater growth, greater deficits: As I have already mentioned that since we are growing rapidly, our demand for energy will also grow rapidly. Since we derive an overwhelming percentage of our oil and gas through imports, one has to safely assume that we will incur greater import bills thereby incurring greater trade deficits. If things continue to go like they have been in the past few years, our higher percentages of growth will bring along higher percentages of deficits also. In the long term that could only mean we have to borrow from outsiders (probably China since they will have the most amount of money in future) to balance our budgets. That does not augur well for our dream of being a future superpower.

In the final analysis, one has to admit that at this time in this great game it is “Advantage China” due to the better planning, strategising and execution by the Chinese leaders. We might dream about being the future superpower but if current trends continue we may become the future “borrowing behemoth”.

P.S.: There is one piece of good news in all this for Indian companies particularly the Software companies. With China investing in heavily in these oil and gas pipelines, I believe there will be great need in future for automated software-driven solutions for running those pipeline systems effectively and efficiently. But will our famed software companies wake up to this great opportunity?

A brief reconstruction of American Exceptionalism-Part 6

We have seen in the last five chapters how the idea of American Exceptionalism has influenced American policies in both home and abroad from American independence till today’s time. The belief that the Americans are an exceptional people, whose ideals, values and the ways of life are both morally and materially superior to the rest of the world, still holds sway among a significant amount among the American people particularly America’s intellectual elite.

America remains world’s strongest military power as well as world’s largest economy (despite strong showing by the countries like China and India in the last decade). Moreover America still retains a disproportionate amount of power in influencing the institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations Security Council and the World Bank which allows her to influence and shape international opinion according to her interests. Since America still maintains vast magnitude of power which it can project globally and retains the exceptional attitude in reshaping the world into her own image there remains a very strong possibility in future for America impacting the world in a negative way as a consequence of her exceptional beliefs. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very good examples for this argument.

Now let’s think what the other nations in the World need to do to ensure that they can hold onto their own interest, ideals and values in the face of the global onslaught which has been unleashed by the American exceptionalism since the end of the cold war.

The first and foremost important thing is not to give in to the idea of American exceptionalism, itself. The American state tends to project itself in terms of being an exceptional nation among others with no parallel. It uses every possible technique in the book from World Bank or IMF deals to Hollywood movies to project itself as the ultimate, invincible and unconquerable power in the eyes of the hapless people all around the world. Very often the common people in the world also come under the influence of this propaganda and take the ideas of American exceptionalism, seriously. Not only common people but very often even the power brokers in the world capitals also come under the shock and awe of perceived or actual American power. The recently concluded nuclear deal between India and America is a great example of that kind of reverential attitude towards American power.

The progressive people in the world should look to the situation in those nations whose leaders and citizens have accepted American hegemony and American way of life as their own. Let us go through the examples of Japan and Germany in this respect. Japan although currently being world’s second largest economy, has become standstill in terms of economic productivity, in the last couple of decades. The Japanese economy has virtually seen no growth in the last two decades. To complicate Japanese problems, Japan is going through one of the biggest demographic slumps in her history. The population growth has fallen well below the replacement level of 2 children per couple. Germany which holds the distinction of being the largest economy in the world is also suffering from more or less the same ills. Germany’s population growth rate as well as her economic growth rate has fallen to historic lows among the European countries. Both these two countries have accepted American hegemony as their ultimate fate. In the international arena both these two countries are becoming increasingly irrelevant and marginal as they gradually give up their political and economic innovativeness and ingenuity to America.

Compare to these two countries let us take up the examples of countries like Turkey, Brazil and Venezuela. All these countries are asserting their rights and interests in the face of strong American pressure. They are taking bold and new initiatives to challenge the status quo in the world like the recent Iran-Turkey-Brazil nuclear deal. These countries have accepted that in stead of living under the shadow of “Pax Americana”, their interests will be better served by asserting their own values and interests. This should be the way for the rest of the world to follow if they want to hold onto their own when it comes to asserting their interests in this unipolar world.

The responsibility for the people in countries like India is to constantly remind fellow citizens as well as their political decision makers for not being subservient to the overwhelming American hegemony. For too many times we have seen political elites in countries like India surrendering their countries’ legitimate interests to the American superpower. The common people in countries like India have to face the ultimate consequences for these kinds of submissive behavior towards American hegemon.

It is too tempting for people like us Indians to become overawed with the American power and pomp and leave the matter of dealing with America to our political class.
The fact is that when the consequences of being silent in face of American exceptionalism is in terms of having tragedies like Bhopal and Enron, we simply can not afford that. We have only two choices: either fight against the sense of American exceptionalism in every possible way or become a meek and subservient bystander in face of American hegemony. The choice is ours to make.

Asymmetric Warfare and it's effects on the nation state

The end of 20-th Century saw a meteoric rise of a special kind of political actor in the global stage. These political actors can not be categorized under the traditional western term of “nation state”. These political actors themselves can not be categorized into a single category. Some of them call themselves “revolutionaries” e.g. the Maoists in Nepal or the FARC in Columbia, some of them call themselves Mujahids or “holy warriors” like Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-toiba etc , some of them call themselves “national freedom fighters” like Hamas in Palestine , Hezbollah in Lebanon , ETA in Spain or the Niger Delta emancipation movement in Nigeria. Although all of these groups have different set of goals and all of them adopt different methods to achieve their goals but they have one thing in common. All of them pose a significant challenge to the existing global order and the existing political system of “nation state” in particular. We will discuss the reasons behind the birth of these groups and will also try to analyze and understand what could be the effect of these groups on 21-st century global politics. Although it is very difficult to categorize so diverse set of groups in a single name, I will call them “non state actors” for the benefit of the readers throughout this essay.

Goals and tactics of the non-state actors
------------------------------------------------

Now let us have a look at the goals of some of these non-state actors.
Maoists in Nepal have long fought for the abolition of the monarchy , authoritarian big landlords and what they perceive as colonial Indian interference in that country and replacing the prevailing system there with what they call a “People’s republic”. Similarly the FARC in Columbia has been fighting the Columbian government for quite sometime for replacing it with a government which they say will look after the rights of the peasants , workers and indigenous people in that country.

Groups like the Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-toiba consider the existing pro-western governments in the Muslim world as apostates and they want to destroy these regimes and bring Islamic Jurisprudence rule or Sharia in the Muslim World. Some of them like Al-Qaeda want to go further and seek the overthrowal of the western governments and replacing them with states ruled under Islamic law.

The groups like Hamas, Hezbollah wants to end Israeli occupation from all parts of the Middle East. Apart from that Hamas wants to overthrow the existing rule of Palestinian authority in the West Bank and replace it with a state ruled by Islamic law. Hezbollah wants to ensure a gradual and peaceful end in Lebanon’s parliamentary voting system, a legacy for French colonial rule in Lebanon and replace it with a one-man, one-vote parliamentary system.
Other groups such as ETA in Spain have been fighting for a separate homeland for the Basque people in southern Spain against what they call “colonial Spanish rule”. Niger Delta emancipation movement in Nigeria wants to ensure an enhanced share for the local Niger delta people in the profits that come from Nigel Delta oil and gas.

So if we analyze the goals of these different non-state actors we can see a common trend.
All of these non-state actors seek to overthrow the existing order in which they operate and they also seek to replace it with something they believe will be better than the existing ones in which they operate.

Now if we analyze the background to these non-state actors we can see some other commonalities among them. In the case of Maoists or the Farc we can see that these movements came about as a result of authoritarian, oppressive regimes which have been backed by outside powers. For example the Monarchy and the various political parties like the Nepali congress and the Communist Party of Nepal have been backed by India.
In Columbia the United States of America (USA) backed the various right-wing dictatorships which ruled Columbia for much of the 20-th Century.

So in both these countries, a group of progressive minded people gradually took up arms against these regimes which they considered unjust and puppets used by foreign puppet masters.
These progressive minded people are the ones who have become the Maoists in Nepal as well as the FARC in Columbia.

Al-Qaeda has a different background to it. The concept of nation state has been a colonial legacy in much of modern Muslim world. Most of the modern Muslim majority states were created by the Western imperialists to further their political interests. Their goal was to create small states which are easier to control. These western powers for their benefit created a ruling class in these newly formed countries which continue to rule the people in these countries in a way alike their colonial masters. Access to modern technology as well as access the modern education has ensured that a lot of affluent people in the Muslim world are aware of their problems. They blame both their oppressive ruling elite as well as the West for their plight. Some of these people like Osama bin Laden or Ayman Al-Zawahiri went on to form groups like the Al-Qaeda. Ironically the USA used many of these people for it’s war on the Soviets in Afghanistan for quite considerable amount of time.

Hamas and Hezbollah were groups which came as a result of Israeli military policies in the nations of Palestine and Lebanon. Hamas was created in the late 1980-s as a response to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the six-day war in 1967. Hezbollah was created by the Shiites in Lebanon after the Israeli military invasion of that country in 1982 which was called “Operation Peace Galilee”. Both these groups started as Muslims resisting the brutal occupation of their countries. Apart from that both these two groups also wanted to reform their own societies in an Islamic way.

If we look at the use of tactics these groups have tried, we can see a common pattern. The Maoists in Nepal and the Farc in Columbia have tried to use guerrilla warfare based from the remote parts in their country. They have used the remoteness of their terrain to useful advantage like hiding from the more powerful government troops and ambushing them certainly whenever an opportunity arises. This tactics has given some successes to both the parties. The Maoists managed to control the countryside in Nepal and were able to build a virtual parallel administration in those areas. When it came to the negotiating table after the fall of the monarchy in 2006, it negotiated fro ma position of strength.

Although the Farc has faced a string of military setbacks in the more recent times but still it deserves the credit for holding up against the US-backed mighty Columbian government for quite a long amount of time.

The Al-Qaeda has taken the concept of asymmetric warfare into a completely different level. The Nepali Maoists have most of the times directed their attacks on the government structures like police stations or what they perceive corrupt capitalist outposts like soft drink manufacturing plants. They have seldom attacked the civilian population since they consider that they are the ones fighting on behalf the civilians. Al-Qaeda, on the contrary has used the technique of suicide bombings particularly on civilian targets and especially with a rather blunt and indiscriminate way.

Al-Qaeda has always looked to terrorize and sow the seeds of fear and despair among the populations it is working in. Whether it is in the US on 9/11 or whether it is in Pakistan or Iraq they have always been very eager to use suicide bombing as a tool. Their objective is to create a sense of despair and panic among the civilian population as well as proving to the civilian population that their governments are impotent to protect them. They believe this will lead to the downfall of the pro-US Arab regimes.

Another key difference between the Al-Qaeda and the Nepali Maoists is the difference in the kind of cadres these two groups are having with. The Maoist leadership as well as general cadre generally comes from the rural, peasant classes of Nepal. To these people rebelling against a government which is tyrannical is sometimes the only choice to do something meaningful in life.

In the case of Al-Qaeda, most of it’s leadership as well as individual cadres come from well-to-do upper or middle class families. The people like Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Adam Gadhan, John Walker Lindh or Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had proper skills as well as educational qualification to fit into a decent job and start a family of their own. But still they decided to choose the path of what they consider holy war because they did not like living like they have been doing in the early years of their lives. They can be categorized under the category of men who are never happy with what is happening all around him and wants to do something to change the world that he lives in.

However Al-Qaeda’s tactics of rampant suicide bombings has not endeared it to the global Muslim population. It is true that most Muslims do sympathize with Al-Qaeda’s ultimate aims like toppling the pro-US brutal dictatorships in the Muslim world as well as ensuring the end of all hegemonic American influence on the Muslim world. However they do disagree with the tactics of killing innocent civilians in such a huge number and in such a heartless and cruel manner.
Hamas and Hezbollah have taken a more traditional approach in fighting the forces of Israeli defense forces. Initially both the groups used suicide bombings but later they decided to create effective militias which are able to fight conventional battles. As a result since 2006, Hamas have not performed any suicide operations inside Israel. But it has tried to effectively create an organized military force instead. It has met some success in the process. The military wing of Hamas (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades) successfully ousted the rival US and Israel backed Fatah militias from Gaza in 2006 as well as managing to survive against all the might of the Israeli Defense forces in 2006 as well as in 2008.

Hezbollah switched to conventional guerilla warfare well in the late 1980-s. It’s militia successfully managed to liberate South Lebanon from the Israeli defense forces as well as the Israeli-backed Southern Lebanese Army militia in the 2002. Hezbollah successfully managed to survive 34-days of Israeli assault on itself thus becoming the first ever Arab army not to lose a battle against the Israeli defense forces since the 1967 war.

Hezbollah also maintains a well-organized social welfare network in the Shiite dominated areas of Lebanon. Immediately after the devastation of the 2006 war against Israel, Hezbollah went into reconstructing the destroyed parts of Lebanon with a zeal which is similar to what they showed during the war. This has created a strong support base for Hezbollah in Lebanon which not many leaders in the Arab world can think about.

Effects of the “non-state” actors on modern nation state
---------------------------------------------------------------------

If we have a look at all these non-state actors we will see that all of them have a common theme about them. That is all of them want to uproot the nation state structure in which they operate but not all of them use the same sort of methods to achieve their goals. The performance of these different groups indicate that the success in achieving to bring down the nation state concept will vary depending of the tactics used by the respective non-state actor. For example Hezbollah has established very strong foundations in Lebanon thanks to their good work during both the war as well as peacetime. Hezbollah also has made a point to bring together a political consensus among all the different religious and sectarian factions in Lebanon so to bring up a unified Lebanon. As a result of all these good deeds, Hezbollah is well on it’s way to replace the old French-created divisive and sectarian Lebanese state with a new more unified and less sectarian and democratic state.
Al-Qaeda on the other hand due to it’s extreme brutal and indiscriminate killings has alienated large majority of people in key Muslim majority countries such as Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan. Although it has been able to win many converts from a wide section of population from all over the world but still it has failed to appeal beyond the middle class loners who do tend romanticize about concepts like violence and rebellion.

One thing can easily be understood from the rise of all these non- state actors that the people all over the world are not happy with the traditional nation states. All these nation states particularly in the Muslim world are mostly a product of Western colonialism. Western colonial powers created these states for their political interest. The government in these states is in the hands of a few extremely rich individuals. These elite groups use extremely tyrannical methods to hold on to their possessions. Almost all these corrupt elite are backed by the West. Now when it comes to important issues such as the Israeli blockade in Gaza or the building of Israeli settlements in Israeli-occupied Jerusalem, these elites normally take a hands-off approach. This leads to a sense of despair and anger among the population in these countries. This causes the rise of non-state actors in the long term.

Although overwhelming population in the Muslim world is against the current system of these nation states but the diverging fortunes of Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda show us that one needs to take a patient and constructive approach towards the problem of nation states. The people in these states need to think and implement a detailed and well-planed program in not only removing the existing nation states but replacing them with more progressive and more representative states in future. Failure to do the above will only prolong the dysfunctional existing nation states thereby prolonging the agony of a huge amount of people in the world.

Al - insaan al - kamil

In modern times if anyone wants to know what is the most common name in the world, he or she will probably be astonished to know the answer; “Mohammad”. I would like to state that it is probably impossible to imagine human history without understanding this personality.

I will discuss in this post from a largely historical viewpoint the influences of Prophet Mohammad in human history and how he is relevant to modern human civilization.

Pre-Mohammad era: Jahiliyah - the Arabian “Dark Age”

When we take a look at the pre-Mohammad Arabia, we will see a region lying between two great empires the Byzantine Roman Empire and the Persian Sassanid Empire. Both the Empires saw this land as a backward region and they never tried to conquer it outright but there are occasions in history where both sides tried to create influence in the region through their Arabian clients. There are two things that can be found in a general Arab: Pride and Bravery. The pre-Mohammad Arabs were very fierce in their pride and were never affected by any foreign cultural influence. They were very proud of their language Arabic. Being situated in a harsh, desert climate they always had to look out for water and other essentials of life and this made their lifestyle nomadic in nature. Fights between different Arab tribes for sources of water were commonplace. The fierce pride among Arabs made sure that sometimes even very trivial issues like grazing of camels on a disputed plot could lead to fierce clashes between tribes, which could continue for centuries. In a society like this one there was always a need for warriors thereby boys were always preferred over girls. Some of the Arabs used to dispose off their girl children in a very brutal way. The inter-tribe, inter-clan and sometimes inter-family conflict was the norm. The Arabs although being brave and fierce fighters always were busy fighting themselves.
Arabs did not follow any particular religion as such. They were mainly nature worshippers; they used to worship many idols of different gods and goddesses and almost every tribe used to have their own god or goddess. Some of them had become Christians and some of them had become Jews. Because the Arabs were always pre-occupied with their present condition in preserving themselves in their harsh climates they never gave too much thought on the concepts like philosophical or religious thought, spirituality or afterlife.
As a result of all these discussed causes the Arabs never played any meaningful role in history prior to Mohammad. Both the Roman as well as the Persian Empires always considered them barbaric savages unworthy of contact.



Arabs: From Barbaric Savages to Enlightened Faithfuls

This was the background before Mohammad came. Now if we look at the Arabs just 100 years after the death of Mohammad, we see a completely different picture. Arabs as a people have changed completely from being nomadic tribes to a world conquering Empire. From being idol-worshippers now they have become devout believers in a monotheistic faith whose great, long march in history is still going on. The two empires the Byzantine Roman and the Persian empires that used to look down upon Arabs with contempt are no longer present. Arabs have not only conquered these two empires but they have also successfully brought their faith upon the people of these two empires.

This Arab success was a real first for the world when a completely nomadic and backward people not only achieved comprehensive military victories over two long established and well advanced civilizations but successfully brought their own faith upon the people of these two empires. This was a permanent and long lasting historical achievement for the Arabs. All these happened because of the teachings and leadership of one man: Mohammad.

There are few precedents in History of a socially, economically, culturally backward people conquering more materially advanced civilizations. For example the Germanic tribes destroyed the Roman Empire and the Mongols conquered China and much of the Muslim Middle East. The Arab conquest is different from these two examples in the sense that unlike the Germans and Mongols, the Arabs successfully converted the population of the defeated empire into their own faith. In case of the Germans and the Mongols they themselves converted to the faith of the defeated people. For example German tribes converted to Christianity and the Mongols converted to Buddhism and Islam. But the Arabs not only held on to their own faith but also brought new people in their faith. Amazing thing is that even after centuries after the Arab conquest the people in Persia (modern Iran) or Byzantine (modern Turkey) are overwhelmingly Muslims, this is the most enduring legacy of the Arab conquests.

The biggest changes that Prophet Mohammad brought are in the Arab mindset and Arab attitude. Let us discuss these changes that are probably most critical to the creation of historical Arab character. As we have seen before Arabs did not have any specific faith , they used to worship different idols and they did use to spend a lot of their energy in infighting. With the coming of Islam, Prophet Mohammad was successful in uniting almost all Arabs under a single faith which is in political terms even by today’s standards is a significant achievement. Because the Arabs were united under Islam now they could focus their energies in much serious issues.
In pre-Mohammad Arab society, the fate of the socially and economically weak was to be trampled under the boot of the mighty and powerful. Now with the coming of Islamic concepts such as afterlife (Akhirat), Judgment day (Qayamat) the Arabs came to believe that those who oppress the weak in the life will be tremendously punished in hell after death. This made a huge impact on Arabic mindset. The powerful tribal chieftains were forced to treat their subjects with compassion since they believed that if they do not treat their subjects with justice and mercy they could end up being tortured in hell for eternity.
The Islamic institution of Almsgiving (Zakat) came in as a godsend blessing to the weak, poor, sick, needy and especially to the orphans. Zakat was crucial for the survival and upbringing of the orphans in the society as the frequent internal wars among Arabs were creating a steady and ever growing army of untimely orphans in the Arab society. Even before Mohammad there were Arab traditions in giving charity to the poor but the difference between those pre-Mohammad Arab practises and Zakat is that since Zakat is a mandatory religious duty for all Muslims so from now onwards whenever an affluent Arab was doing some charity work for the poor he did not feel that he was doing favours to the needy instead he considered it as if it was his normal day-to-day social duty.

Another important change that came to traditional Arab attitude was to the Arabian identity. Arabs were always used to identify themselves in terms of their tribes and clans and families. Islam created a completely different sort of identity for the Arabs. For a Muslim the highest level of loyalty lies with that of Allah and every other identity is inferior to this identity. From being divided in numerous tribes, the Arabs were brought together into a single community. All the Arabs from different feuding tribes, from different backgrounds and different social positions came together under the banner of Islam. All these people came and worked together since they believed that they were brothers in the same faith and they were worshipping the same true God.

Islam was very simple and easy to understand. Prophet Mohammad talked about a faith where there were no priests, no hierarchies, no special privileges, no castes, no sacrifices, and no lavish ceremonies. In Islam every common man or woman comes directly into a covenant with Allah. There is a direct relationship between Allah and the individual. No intermediatory, no medium and no idols are required in Islam. All the existing tribal loyalties, all false gods, all distortions were swept away by the tide of Islam. Mohammad created a unified community from the people who had not a single common thing among them. Some of Mohammad’s companions included people as different as Bilal the Ethiopian, Solman the Persian, Suhaib the Roman and Abdullah ibn Salam the Jew. Mohammad spoke about creating a unified community of all the Muslims regardless of their background, ethnicity, culture or social status. This concept of such community is called Ummah.
The creation of this community meant that Islam was always getting a large pool of committed people who were ready to sacrifice everything for their faith and belief. It was a great advantage that Muslims held over other non-Muslim Arabian tribes who were still bound by their ancient tribal loyalties. When it came to difficult situations like war and persecution the Muslims always showed much more vigour than their non-

Another important aspect of Islam was in the warfare scenarios of the Arabs. Muslims always thought they were fighting for Allah whenever there was a battle whereas other non-Muslim Arabs fought for their tribal chiefs. This ensured that Muslims were always better disciplined, more united, better organized and more zealous in fighting than their fellow pagan Arab counterparts. Muslims believed that they were going to heaven if they died on the battlefield. This meant whenever fighting they could always fight with that much more vigour, zeal and ferocity. Mohammad himself showed all the inspiring leadership skills during these wars. He always led from the front. He was ready to share the same fate that of his followers. Moreover he was always compassionate towards the defeated enemy who had surrendered. This can be seen when he forgave the whole Meccan leadership (who were his sworn enemies) after he had conquered Mecca. This was a unique experience for the Arabs since they were not used to seeing the victor forgiving the vanquished. Undoubtedly this led to rapid spread of Islam throughout the wider Middle East.

Changing the tide of human history

Till the time of Mohammad the most influential and popular idea in the world was certain Christian concept of Original Sin. This concept used to think that all the human beings are born sinners and they are destined to doom unless they convert to Christianity. The basis of this concept begins with the incident in Bible where Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and were expelled from the Garden of Eden. This concept draws the conclusion that all the human beings are sinners of the crime committed by Adam and Eve since all the human beings are children of Adam and Eve. A human being can only be cleared from this sin if he/she converts to Christianity.
Mohammad’s idea challenged this concept in a formidable way. Mohammad taught a completely different thing. According to his teachings, there is no original sin. Adam and Eve did commit the crime of eating forbidden fruit and they were equally guilty of it.
(Note: Christian tradition has always blamed Eve more for this sin whereas the Quran says both Adam and Eve are equally guilty) But since both of them repented to Allah Allah forgave their crimes. And so all the newborn babies are innocent and logically in no ways the crimes of a man/woman can transmit to his/her progeny.
Mohammad’s ideas and teaching against Original Sin were so liberating since it completely frees a man/woman from thinking that he/she is a sinner from his/her birth. This was the reason that gradually even the great Christian communities in the Middle East (some of whom dates back from the time of Jesus) embraced Islam, one after another. Mohammad actually wiped the concept of Original Sin out from the innocent mind of humanity.

Prophet Mohammad always presented himself as the last in the line of the biblical prophets. He always taught the core of biblical teachings. He created a great precedent in setting how to do religious discourse or religious debate. He taught that in a religious debate a man must be humble and respectful of his opponent’s faith and he should never condemn/criticise the faith of his opponent. One of the amazing legacies of this idea of Mohammad is that whenever there is a religious debate between Muslim and non-Muslims say Christians, Christians invariably will criticise and condemn the very character of Mohammad whereas the Muslims invariably praise and show respect to the character of Jesus. This is a great legacy that Muslims should be proud of. There is no doubt that this is a direct result of Mohammad showing the way himself in his religious debate with non-Muslims.

The Islam that Mohammad preached is indeed the religion of peace but this peace is not the peace of timid and submissive. Indeed it is very clear from the Prophet’s example that one should do his/her utmost to attain peace but peace is only for the brave, just and righteous. Weak and submissive can neither attain nor maintain peace. You cannot attain peace with your enemy when your enemy is arrogant and bullying while you yourself is weak and begging for mercy. Indeed this is a thing should be learned and followed by today’s people.

Another important teaching of Mohammad was to perform Justice in all conditions in all circumstances. One interesting example is that two men came to Mohammad for Justice, one of them was a Muslim another one was a Jew. Now Mohammad listened to the viewpoint of both of them and decided in the favour of the Jew. The Jew was so astonished that he immediately embraced Islam. Indeed this tells us about how just Mohammad was as a Jurist. One of the prime tasks of any Islamic state is to provide equal justice and rule of law to all of it’s citizens, whatever their backgrounds may be.

If one has to summarize the character of Mohammad one has to say that here was a man who preached those ideas what he deeply believed. Mohammad could easily have led a very comfortable, family life like other wealthy men of his tribe but he did not. He had an idea that he thought would eventually make the way his people live better and he persisted with his ideas throughout his life against all odds. He had to face a lot of problems: his own tribe wanted to kill him, many of his close followers were brutally tortured and murdered, the Jews and Christians whom he thought as “fellow children of Abraham” rejected him because he was an Arab. But in spite of all this he never flinched from what he believed in. Indeed such was his conviction and faith. This is something that any people can and should learn from Mohammad that if one has believed in certain idea he should persist with it and should not desist from it even if the whole world could be up against him.
An idea can survive as long as people can easily identify with it. The most compelling reason of the success of Islam is that it is very easy for one to identify himself with.
If anyone asks a Pakistani or an Iranian or an Egyptian or a Malaysian or a Turk who he most likes and loves, the answer will be “Mohammad”. Indeed this is the most enduring legacy of Mohammad that even after more than 1400 years after his death a great number of people still identify themselves with his ideas, teachings and beliefs. Indeed one has to say that if one wants to know who is the most influential man in history, the answer is: Mohammad.

Elephat vs Dragon

In recent months a very disturbing trend can be observed in Indian foreign policy establishment. The whole Indian foreign policy establishment has been buzzing with news about border violations by Chinese troops into Indian territory, the Indian media outlets have been beaming with breaking news of Chinese troops breaking out in territories like Arunachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal and Ladakh. Some Indian commentators have been busy predicting that China will be going to a War with India by 2012.There have been comments from official Indian spokespersons calling for China to show restraint. The Indian Air force Chief recently went as far as saying that China has replaced Pakistan as the number one enemy in the eyes of Indian establishment. In the middle of all this there has been some not so fruitful talks between Indian and Chinese officials about the disputed border areas between the two countries. In short there has been a feeling of antipathy towards China in India that only resembles 1962, the last time when these two countries went to war.

Let us analyze the reasons behind this frenzy about China in India. India and China do have existing boundary disputes between themselves. The region of Tawang, which falls under Arunachal Pradesh, is claimed by China as a part of it’s Tibetan region while India always considers Tawang it’s own territory. In recent months China has upped the ante on Tawang, it very recently pushed the World Bank in canceling a multi-million dollar loan to India as that loan was to be spent on Arunachal Pradesh by India. China and India are actually holding dialogue with each other without any results on the future of Tawang.

In recent years a section of Indian establishment and elite has certainly become very confident and Zealous about themselves and the future of India. This group believes that India is destined to become a great power in very near future. Recent Indian economic growth and successful nuclear bomb related experiments might have spurred them into this view. This group considers China as a natural competitor to India’s coming greatness hence there is a reason that this group will try to influence the Indian public opinion against China so that it can mobilize Indian popular opinion against what this group believes an ensuing Chinese attack on India.

Some of the leading lights in this group come from both the ruling Indian national congress as well as the leading opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party(also known as BJP). The Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangha which is the parent body of the BJP (also known as the RSS) came up with a list of 10 possible reasons that was preventing India becoming a great nation. Unsurprisingly, China was listed as the number one reason in that list. Indian defense minister at that time, George Fernandez went on to say on the same year that China and not Pakistan was the number one enemy at that time. Immediately after Pokhran nuclear explosions by India then Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee wrought a letter to then US president Bill Clinton identifying China as the main concern behind the nuclear explosions.
Current Indian Prime Minister Dr. Monmohan Sing has been really aggressive in pushing the nuclear deal between India and the US despite strong parliamentary opposition by the Indian leftist parties against the same nuclear deal. There has been very frequent talk in recent times in both the congress as well as the BJP circles of creating a military alliance involving India, USA and Israel. Undoubtedly any alliance of this sort will see China as the main threat. There has also been talk in certain Indian quarters of encircling China by creating an alliance of pro-US countries like India, Australia, Japan, South Korea and Singapore. All these examples prove that a certain section in Indian politics has been instrumental in ratcheting up the tension in Indo-China relations.

This above-mentioned section of Indian population considers the United States of America as a natural ally of India and henceforth a partner against China in the Asian geo-politics. This is the same group, which lobbied hard for the recently concluded Indo-US nuclear deal both in India as well as in USA.After the recent election of Barrack Hussain Obama as US president, the current US administration unlike the previous one under George W Bush, has not given India the same attention as it has done to China. This could be one of the ways by the above-mentioned group to bring back US attention towards India This could be another ploy to appeal towards US arms industry for more future Indian purchases of US weapon systems.

Another couple of possible scenarios could be analyzed behind the recent events. US under Obama administration has given more importance in fighting Talliban militants in Afghanistan. To succeed in Afghanistan the US needs the help of Pakistani military and intelligence establishment. That is why it wants the Pakistani military to start fighting more forcefully in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pakistanis whom consider India as the most serious threat to it’s existence told the Americans that they can not fight with full force against Afghanistan as long as the threat from India remains on it’s eastern border. The US certainly seem to have pushed the Indians towards a diplomatic détente towards Pakistan since it does not want an escalation of tension in the broader south Asian region when it is busy in Afghanistan. Now the modern Indian mindset is based upon two facts one is a sense of superiority over Pakistan and another is a sense of inferiority over China. Our readers will do well to remember that there was a terrible terrorist attack by Pakistani terrorists in the Indian business capital of Mumbai in November 2008 and the entire Indian nation was baying for Pakistani blood.

Now this whole incident took place at the same time around the election of Barrack Obama as US president. So when the Obama administration had pressed on India to maintain peace with Pakistan the Indian government had to divert the attention of it’s citizens who were angry over the inaction of their government regarding Pakistan. Playing the China card is certainly a very good option by the Indian leaders to divert the attention of their public from Pakistan to China.

Whatever reason could be behind this recent anti-China frenzy in India the Indian government must tread carefully when it comes to China. A look at the map of region will ensure that to the readers. India is surrounded by neighbors whom the Chinese can use with effectiveness in case of an all out war. In the western border of India, there is Pakistan which is an all-weather friend of China, on the northern border lies Nepal where in recent times China has gained a lot of influence with it’s alliance with the local Nepali Maoists. On the eastern front China has gained influence in Bangladesh and Myanmar China has been able to gain a foothold even in Sri Lanka. Overall assessment ensures that in the case of warfare Chinese allies may well surround India, which is nothing short of a strategic nightmare for India.
A further look at the international scenario will present bleaker picture for India. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russians has been cozying up to China as a bulwark against what it considers US interference in areas of Russian influence. In case of a large-scale War between India and China, Russian support will probably be with China than with it’s cold war ally, India. Support from the United States on which Indian establishment is relying upon, might be not that forthcoming. China owes US billions of dollars in debt and as the biggest lender to the USA, the Chinese has got the leverages over US to ensure it’s complete neutrality in case of an all out War against India.
Another important matter is that in terms of both conventional as well as non- conventional military aspects Chinese Military is far superior to Indian military. In a large-scale war it will be impossible for the Indian military to prevail over the Chinese.
To substantiate this point I am giving the below links:
1. http://www.abytheliberal.com/internationalism/india-vs-china-military-conventional-nuclear
2. http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-65175.aspx
3. http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-65122.aspx
Apart from conventional and nuclear forces China has got substantial leverage over India in terms of areas like cyber warfare and space warfare. Chinese hackers have worldwide notoriety in breaking the defense related websites of it’s neighbors. China is also the first nation in Asia to shot down one of it’s own satellites only couple of years ago. In a wide war China could easily exploit these capabilities to neutralize our computer and satellite driven weapons and other systems of mass-communication.

After an overall look at the situation between the two countries, Indian establishment will be well advised to take a very careful approach in it’s border disputes vis-à-vis China. Recent Indian government moves do not aspire much confidence in it’s decision making. Some Indian media sources have been reporting that India has been thinking of parading the Dalai Lama in the Tawang area to give legitimacy to Indian claims on this region. If this news is true then one has to say that this decision is both unwarranted and incorrect.
China has been calling Dalai Lama a secessionist for a long time. Now not only this move will substantiate those claims but the Tibetan people could also consider Dalai as an Indian puppet.
In the conclusion one has to argue that the Indian government will do well to take a balanced and well-thought out approach regarding China. Any mistake on this regard might result in a greater tragedy than 1962.

Looming crisis - Russia-Georgian tentions and it's implications

Historical Background

It has been a year since the war between Georgia and Russia ended with Russian victory and de – facto Russian annexation of Georgian territories South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There has been an uneasy peace between the two countries with some border skirmishes and periodical hot rhetoric from both sides.

To understand more of the situation we need to get into a little background of the events. Historically Georgia has been subjugated under subsequent foreign empires for a long part of it’s history. Russia was the last of the foreign powers, which conquered Georgia. Paul I, then Czar of Russia, annexed Georgia into Russian empire in 1801.Georgia was a part of the Russian empire until the Russian revolution in 1917.Georgia declared it’s independence following the revolution and civil war in Russia. It maintained it’s independence till 1921 when it came under Soviet Union’s rule. During this time, two sons of Georgia, Josef Vissarionovich Djugashvili and Lavrenty Beria went onto rule the newly created state Soviet Union. Josef Vissarionovich Djugashvili is known to posterity as Stalin. Beria headed the soviet spy agency KGB. Soviet rule continued till 1991 when Georgia declared independence with the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union.
Eduard Shevardnadze, the former foreign minister of the Soviet Union became the President of Georgia in 1992. Meanwhile ethnic tensions between Georgia and two of it’s regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia flared up which resulted in the positioning of Russian troops as peacekeepers inside these territories. The Georgians elected a new president, Mikhail Saakashvili in 2004 , following a popular revolution known as the “Rose revolution”. The rift between Georgia and the separatist territories continued to widen with time eventually resulting in an attack by the Georgians against the South Ossetians in July 2008. This resulted in the Russian military involvement in the area.
Russian forces quickly moved in and the Georgians had to retreat form the territories. A ceasefire was eventually declared with the mediation of the European Union and the personal intervention of the French President Nicholas Sarkozy, in particular. The terms of truce allowed Russians to maintain their military presence in the Abkhazian and South Ossetian territories. Eventually later in the year 2008 the two breakaway regions, supported by the Kremlin, declared independence from Georgia. As of now an uneasy truce lies between Georgia and Russia, which can anytime burst into another violent conflict.

Underlying Issues

There is a list of underlying issues behind this conflict. First of all we have to acknowledge the historical issue. As we know for much of it’s recent history, Georgia was ruled from Moscow. This came to an end in the early 1990-s following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Ever since then Georgia, to maintain and strengthen it’s independence, has tried to move into the Western sphere of influence. It has repeatedly tried to court the west particularly the US. Since becoming the president of Georgia in 2004, Mikhail Saakashvili has tried to court the US and tried to move his country into the western alliance, NATO. Now Russia which has considered Georgia as part of territory under it’s influence, was angered by this. It always wanted to bring back Georgia under it’s influence. Hence the Russian military has maintained it’s presence in the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia ever since it forced the Georgians out of these areas in 2008.

Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union was weak and dependent upon the western world for it’s survival. Henceforth it could not defend what it has always considered it rightful interests in the former Soviet ruled areas like Georgia. But ever since Vladimir Putin came to power in Moscow, he has tried to strengthen Russia, both financially as well as militarily. The oil boom helped Russia in this direction. So now Russia is showing a lot of assertiveness in pushing it’s point to the world.

The post-soviet Russia not only wants to be recognized as a great power once again but it also is deeply suspicious and hostile to what it considers Western encroachments in once Russian ruled territories like Georgia. Although Vladimir Putin is no longer the president of Russia, but his policies are continuously being pursued by the new president Dmitri Medvedev without any great change. So we can expect a lot of assertiveness from Russia in defending it’s positions in the once Soviet-ruled territories.

The Western world after the demise of it’s cold war rival, the Soviet Union , considered the threat from the Russians , was over . But only after two decades of the end of cold war it has seen the situation changing completely. Until now the west has increased it’s influences in ex-Soviet republics with impunity. The west particularly the US thought that it’s power, ideas and influence were invincible in this region but ever since the Iraq war it has been facing a new reality.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Russia was the first country in the world to offer it’s support to the US in the “War on Terror”. At that time both countries were enjoying great warmth in their relationship. But everything was changed by the US-led war in Iraq on 2003. With that war the world saw the US as a global bully that was ready to impose it’s worldview upon the rest. Not only the US unilaterally withdrew from bilateral nuclear weapons reduction treaties signed between the US and the Soviet Union but the US also expanded it’s political role in the countries like Georgia. This probably have convinced the Russians that the Americans want to play a hegemonic role in Moscow’s own territory at Moscow’s expanse. From this point onwards we can see the Russians vehemently opposing any policy by the US or the NATO alliance to expand it’s role in countries like Georgia.

Another important issue in the Russia-West equations in the 21-st century is energy. Russia boasts one of the world’s biggest reserves of oil and gas. The west needs these oil and gas from Russia at a cheap price to continue it’s economic well being. Now Georgia is in a very strategic position in this regard. Georgia is situated right in the middle of Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil and gas pipeline. This pipeline was intended to bring oil and gas from the energy reach central Asian states to Europe, bypassing Russia. This pipeline is said to have a great significance upon future energy situation in the European Union. So for Moscow to take control of this pipeline means it will control the economic heart of Europe.

Another interesting cause could be the role of the current Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili in flaming tensions with Russia. Ever Since he came into power, the Georgian president has tried to move his country as close as possible towards US. Georgia supported the US in Iraq war with it’s troops and has wholeheartedly supported every US move to increase western role in the eastern Europe. This has created a lot of bad blood between the Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili and some top Russian officials. The government controlled Russian media accused Georgia of committing genocide in South Ossetia during last year’s conflict. Vladimir Putin, current prime minister of Russia, in one of his meetings with French president Nicholas Sarkozy, called for Mikhail Saakashvili to be hanged. The relationship between Georgia and Russia will continue to be tense probably as long as Mikhail Saakashvili is in power in Georgia.

What lies in future?



It is a very difficult and dangerous job to successfully predict the future particularly in a volatile region like the Caucasus. Having said that after analysing all the causes of current tension and conflict in the region we can assume the following points

1. Russia will try to assert it’s role much more assertively in the region in near future. Russia is much more confident after gaining a swift victory in last summer’s war and might try to repeat the result. Though one feels Russians will not try to out rightly occupy and control the whole of Georgia since it will receive widespread condemnation from around the world but it may want to fight a small and limited war to topple the government of Mikhail Saakashvili and replace it with a more pliant regime.
2. The West and the European nations in particular will not militarily intervene in this action. The European nations of the NATO alliance do not have enough military resources to defeat a nuclear-armed Russia in a conventional war. Moreover as we have observed previously the energy interests of the European nations will restrict them to take any direct actions against the Russians. The Europeans will probably limit it’s displeasure to verbal condemnations of the Russian actions.
3. The United States of America, particularly the Bush administration, was an avid supporter of the Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili. Even then when it came to the last summer’s war the Bush administration did not help Georgia militarily.
The current Obama administration is also unlikely to help Georgia in terms of any further military conflict with Russia. The Obama administration is very heavily involved in military operations in Afghanistan and it needs the help of the Russians to win that war. Very recently the Americans made an agreement with the Russians to allow Americans air passage and refuelling facilities in Russian air space for American military operations in Afghanistan. So it is unlikely that the US will come to any aid of it’s Georgian ally in case of a future conflict between Russia and Georgia.

4. Although one cannot predict that when and how a future military conflict will take place between Russia and Georgia but one should not be surprised if such a conflict takes place in very near future. The Russians at the moment seems to be holding all the crucial cards and they are giving the appearance that want to force the issue on Georgia. But if the Russians want to go into the conflict they will choose the timing of that conflict to their advantage. So one has to conclude that for any future conflict to happen between Russia and Georgia, Russia will probably start the conflict at it’s own interest and according to it’s own time and reason.

Contemplations on the Islamic Republic

Background to the revolution

Iran is one of the greatest countries in the history of mankind. Very few countries have been so influential in the history of mankind as Iran. Iran has got a very rich history of civilizational accomplishments, a very diverse heritage and diverse population than any one can think of. Yet for so many times the history of Iran reflects a struggle, a great struggle between competing ideas and personalities where ultimately no one has the last laugh.

One such example of above mentioned struggle took place in 1979. This is the year when the Iranian nation for the first time in three millenniums decided to end the monarchical rule and govern them as a republic. The pahlavi dynasty, which ruled Iran from 1925-1979, was the one, which started first using the name “Iran” in foreign relations instead of the traditional name “Persia”. This dynasty also bought with it a great struggle, the struggle between the will of the people and the will of the monarch.

The last pahlavi ruler Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi was an autocrat in nature, he came to the throne first in the year of 1941, when the Anglo-American invasion of Iran in 1941, deposed his father Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the founder of the pahlavi dynasty. The British and the Americans, who were fearful of Reza Shah’s likeness for Nazi Germany, feared that Iran would be an ally of the third Reich, which would have made life very difficult for British India during the Second World War. So after coming to power on British and American efforts, Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi was from the beginning under complete influence of his British and American mentors.

Although he was under the protection of the British and the Americans, Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi’s rule was never unchallenged. The biggest challenge to his rule came in 1953. Mohammad Mosaddeq, who was Iran’s prime minister from 1951 to 1953, decided to nationalize Iran’s biggest source of economy, it’s massive oil industry.

At that time, Iran’s oil industry was under the command of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (which was Britain’s greatest foreign investment venture at the time, which in the later years went on to become the famous brand “BP” or “British Petroleum”), which used to receive the lion’s share of the profits, thereby discriminating against Iranian interests. British were angry on Mossaddeq on this issue and they decided to depose him in a military coup. The British enlisted the help of the Americans in this regard. At first, President Harry. S. Truman was opposed to be involved in a foreign coup but the next president Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower gave the green signal to the operation. This was going to be the first involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in a foreign “regime change”. The whole operation was codenamed “Operation Ajax”. This operation deposed Mosaddeq and condemned him to a lifelong house arrest and installing Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi as the ultimate authority or absolute monarchical ruler of Iran. Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA officer in charge of the coup wrote in his account of the affair that the Shah has said the following in private "'I owe my throne to God, my people, my army and to you!' By 'you' he [the shah] meant Roosevelt and the two countries—Great Britain and the United States—he was representing. The 1953 coup destroyed any chance of creating a secular, representative democracy in Iran. This also led to creating the general suspicion, anger and hatred among Iranians towards Western policies in Iran as such. In this regard 1953 coup and the involvement of Western powers in it, significantly contributed to the ultimate Islamic revolution in 1979. As per as Iranian oil industry was concerned, an agreement between the Shah and the Western powers in 1954, resulted in US and British companies taking 80% of the profit from Iran’s oil industry and the rest going to the French and Dutch companies. Ironically this agreement was more unfavorable to Iran than the earlier agreement between Iran and the Western powers in the 1930-s.

After 1953, the Shah went on to create a strong totalitarian state, ruled with an iron fist. His secret police the SAVAC tortured, harassed, and eliminated anyone who was thought to be in opposition to Shah’s absolute rule. Shah also made many reforms in what he called “White Revolution” towards modernizing Iran including empowerment of Women, a program of reforms to break up landholdings, allowing the religious minorities to hold public offices. He was the first of any Muslim rulers to recognize Israel. Israel and Iran had a very cordial relationship in this time period. Throughout his rule he received support from the Western powers, United States, in particular. The Shah was considered to be the most valuable ally of the West in the Middle East and a bulwark against the spreading of the atheist Soviet Communism in the region. Not surprisingly, the western countries, United States in particular, overlooked the massive human rights violations, caused by the Shah regime.

Causes behind the revolution

There were many causes behind the revolution; all of the causes can be considered important reasons behind the revolution. Here we will broadly emphasize some of them.

The first cause, which should be considered the primarily important reason, was, a resurgent Islamic movement, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. For centuries, the imams or religious jurists have dominated the socio-political life in Iran. They used to formulate the worldview as well define the lifestyle of the common Iranians. Iranians particularly the rural population tends to be religious, simple and devout in nature. The shah rule, which wanted modernization of Iranian society through westernization, was deeply resented and hated by the pious clergy as well as the common believers. The shah regime gave more importance to Iranian pre-Islamic past, like implementing policies such as changing the first year of the Iranian solar calendar from the Islamic hijri to the ascension to the throne by Cyrus the great. With this "Iran jumped overnight from the Muslim year 1355 to the royalist year 2535." In 1971 when the shah celebrated the 2500-th anniversary of the founding of the Persian Empire, the pomp and extravagance of the ceremonies organized by the regime, was deeply criticized by some of the Iranian religious establishment. One Iranian leader made the following comment, "As the foreigners reveled on drink forbidden by Islam, Iranians were not only excluded from the festivities, some were starving."

It is interesting to note that not all the religious leadership supported Imam Khomeini, in fact there were divisions between the clergy, quite a few of them actually did not support the concept of religious jurists involving themselves in a political situation, some of the religious figures even wanted a gradual reform and democratic change within the Shah’s regime and not it’s overthrowal. Imam Khomeini and some of his followers supported a different viewpoint. They believed that the Western civilization had wanted to dominate, colonize and subjugate the Islamic world by imposing concepts like secularization, atheism, democracy and decadence upon the Muslims through proxies such as the shah regime. So, Imam Khomeini wanted to replace the shah regime with a republic, supervised by a group of Islamic jurists. He believed that this government would stop all incorrect and corrupt interpretations of Islam and bring about a nation without any injustice, poverty or oppression like the one created by Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) at Medina in the seventh century. He called this form of government as “velayat-e-faqih” (guardianship of the jurist).

Imam Khomeini represented the Islamic face of the opposition, but there were strong secular and communist elements involved in the overall opposition movement against the Shah. These elements included the parties like “Freedom movement of Iran” led by people like Mehdi Bazargan who believed a more moderate and reformist government as well as more secular and nationalist parties like “National Front”. These parties were formed mostly from the rich urban population. These parties wanted a constitutional government based on Iran’s 1906 constitution and they did not necessarily believe in the concept of the “velayat-e-faqih”.

The communist element of the Iranian opposition included the groups like “Tudeh Party of Iran”. These parties wanted a communist style government in Iran. They opposed the brutal, corrupt and tyranny of the Shah regime and wanted to overthrow it in a violent revolution. The Shah regime feared this particular element of opposition most. The communists in Iran faced tremendous persecution in the hands of SAVAC. These communist elements during the time of revolution went on to form the group “People’s Mujahidin”(Mujahidin – e- Khalq) which would go on to play an important role both during the revolution against the Shah regime as well as the main opposition against the Islamic republic, created after the fall of Shah.

Although the shah regime had implemented a lot of reforms but the middle and lower classes of Iranians did not have any drastic change in their life standards. Only a very narrow percentage of people who were very close to the shah, benefited from these reforms. The oil boom in the 1970-s did not help the matter; the gap between the rich and poor grew alarmingly as the shah regime did not distribute the wealth among the poor.

Instead the shah regime wasted the oil wealth in meaningless celebrations like the celebration of 2500 years of continuous monarchy in Persia. This helped to create a lot of resentment against the shah regime among most segments of Iranian society. So when the protests that overthrew shah broke out there were just too many people in the streets for shah’s imperial army and SAVAC to control or stop them.

Aftermath of the revolution: Iran’s war with Saddam

Immediately after the Islamic revolution, the new Iranian state, Islamic republic of Iran, which came into being after the fall of the shah regime, soon find it’s detractors and enemies, trying to destroy it with all the resources at their disposal.

The biggest of the enemies of the nascent revolution was the western backed dictator of the neighboring Iraq, Saddam Hussain. Saddam wished to become the most powerful man in the entire Middle East and he considered the rising Islamic ideology from Iran as the biggest threat to his rule. Moreover, majority of the Iraq’s Muslims were Shiites and Imam Khomeini started to call the Shiites in Iran to rise up and overthrow Saddam’s regime. Iraq also had a long-term border dispute with Iran over the waters of Shatt-el-Arab and the oil-rich Iranian province of Khuzestan.Although the Iranian military was far stronger to that of Iraq but the new Iranian government had purged a lot of top pro-shah Iranian military officers, moreover, Iran’s old military alliances with USA and Israel were broken by the new government, so Iranian military was considerably weaker than Saddam’s army both in terms of professional officers as well as spare parts.Saddam wanted to take advantage of this situation as he wanted to quickly defeat Iran and become the strongest ruler in the middle east.

Iraq declared war on Iran with a massive air and ground invasion of Iranian territory in the September 1980. Iraq was backed by all the western countries and US in particular as well as all the major Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Iran got support from counties like North Korea, Libya and Syria.

The war between Iraq and Iran went on for between 1980 and 1988. This war was the biggest conventional war since the Second World War. The combined loss of life for both the countries crosses more than 1 million, which includes both the military as well as civilian deaths. The combined loss in wealth for both the countries crosses well over 1 trillion U.S. Dollars.

During the war all the odds were against the new Iranian Islamic republic, Iraq was increasingly getting military support from western nations and U.S. as well it was getting billions in petro-dollars from the rich gulf Arab states. Moreover, Saddam has had no moral or ethical problems against using biological and chemical weapons against Iranians whom he considered sub-humans.

On the other hand the Islamic republic has broken the old military alliances with USA and Israel and it was in serious need of military spare parts.

But against all odds the Islamic republic not only survived but at one time it was almost near total victory. The main reason behind that is the Islamic revolution had created deep impression upon the mind of Iranian youth and they went to the battlefields in millions thinking that if they died in the battlefields they will go to paradise as martyrs.

This war was not only between two nations but also between two competing ideologies; the Islamic revolutionary ideology represented by Imam Khomeini’s Iran and the pan-Arab nationalism led by Saddam’s Iraq. Both the leaders were also very different in their approach in leading their respective peoples in this war. Imam Khomeini was very inspiring, courageous and always encouraging his followers to continue fighting despite all odds against them. He did not think that this war was a war between Iraq and Iran but an war between true Islam and heresy. In his own words “"It is our belief that Saddam wishes to return Islam to blasphemy and polytheism. ... If America becomes victorious ... and grants victory to Saddam, Islam will receive such a blow that it will not be able to raise its head for a long time ... The issue is one of Islam versus blasphemy, and not of Iran versus Iraq."

On the other hand Saddam was playing the role of a powerful, arrogant Arab tribal chief who were sending his young men into war for his own supreme personal glory. His own anti-Persian bias also came into play s he saw himself as the vanguard of the Arabs fighting to save Arab pride against Persians. In a visit by Saddam to al-Mustansiriyyah University in Baghdad, drawing parallels with the 7th century defeat of Persia in the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah, he announced:

In your name, brothers, and on behalf of the Iraqis and Arabs everywhere we tell those Persian cowards and dwarfs who try to avenge Al-Qadisiyah that the spirit of Al-Qadisiyah as well as the blood and honor of the people of Al-Qadisiyah who carried the message on their spearheads are greater than their attempts."

In the end, it was the spirit of Islamic revolution that triumphed over despotism. Iranians were greatly encouraged to fight since they believed that they were fighting for a higher cause whereas the Iraqis went to the battlefields thinking that if they did not fight they and their families will be inside Saddam’s torture chambers. History teaches us that in any war the side that can encourage it’s own society as a whole to take part in the war as part of a higher cause, normally wins. This was exactly the outcome in the Iran-Iraq war.

Islamic Republic (after Khomeini)

The Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988, after both sides agreed to a U.N. proposed ceasefire in 1988.Imam Khomeini did not want to agree to a ceasefire before a total victory in the war and a regime change in Iraq but in the end he simply had to agree to a ceasefire as both the nations were completely exhausted after this brutal war. As a person he was nearing the end of his life. He was coming at the end of a long journey, which took him from the life of a simple village cleric to one of the most influential leaders in the 20-th century. Eventually he died in 1989.

With the death of Imam Khomeini, the Islamic revolution lost it’s greatest mentor. But soon the leaders of the Islamic republic made a decision. With the death of the Imam Khomeini, the revolution’s expansionary attitudes had to be curtailed, the Islamic republic had to be strengthened. The republic and it’s nascent institutions were given more priority rather than expanding the revolution.

Islamic republic has made a lot of good progress in terms of female education, health care as well as distribution of wealth among it’s population unlike some of it’s Arab neighbors. Although because of Islamic republic’s ideological opposition towards the western policies in the Middle East has meant that there will always be antagonism between the west and Islamic republic. Although it did not directly participated in the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the post-9/11 world, Islamic republic has won a lot of benefits in the aftermath of both the wars.

It will be completely unwise to ignore the excesses of the Islamic republic. A lot of people have been put under arrest and unfair jail terms. Some of the basic freedoms like the freedom of expression have been curtailed in last few years. The Islamic republic seems to trying to prevent free flow of information by blocking Internet access, to the Iranian people. Another discouraging fact about Islamic republic is that after the 2009 presidential elections, Islamic republic’s policies towards the opposition have been very harsh and heavy handed. It seems to us that at least one innocent person, a beautiful 26-year old young woman; Neda Agha-Soltani was reportedly shot dead by a government militiaman. This particular incident has created a lot of negative impression about the Islamic republic, in the outside world.

Fundamental Characteristics of Islamic revolution

If we talk about the main ideological characteristics behind Islamic revolution the most important point is that the Islamic revolution was and has been the only popular movement in the Middle East, which tried and succeeded to bring down a tyrannical despotic regime and install a new form of government.

Islamic revolution is unique than many other revolutions that in previous revolutions like the Russian, Chinese or French revolutions is that all these revolutions talked about complete removal of human faith from the day to day running of the state whereas Islamic revolution talked about running the state according to the faith of the Iranian people. In this regard Islamic revolution can be considered as a unique example in the history of similar political movements.

Iranian revolution was the first one in the Middle East, which started to talk about the problems facing the people in the region as well as offered a solution to those problems according to an Islamic worldview. Muslims in the region were used to seeing western powers like UK and France from 1920-s up to the Second World War, then USA and the Soviet Union from the 1950-s, imposing their standards as well as their ideas upon the people in the region. Iran in particular had faced intervention from the USA and UK like the 1953 coup against the nationalist Mohammad Mossadeq government. Almost all the governments of the region had become involved in the cold war chess game. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Gulf States were in side of the Americans whereas the Syrians and the Egyptians (until the death of Gamal Abdul Nasser) were in the Soviet side. For the common Muslims there was simply no voice whatsoever to speak for. Islamic revolution changed all of that.

For the first time for some of the downtrodden Muslims in the Middle East like the Palestinians or the Shiites in Lebanon there was a voice to speak for them as well as an ally they can get help from. Islamic republic gave a helping hand to the Lebanese Shiites who were downtrodden in their own country since the ottomans. The Islamic republic was a very needy ally for the Palestinians also. The Islamic republic broke very useful military alliances with both the US as well as Israel and gave a helping hand to the Palestinians. It is interesting to note that Iranian President Mehmud Ahmedinajad because of his speaking for the right of the oppressed Arabs has become one of the most famous Persian speaking leaders in the modern history of Middle East..

Moreover, Islamic republic was a welcome break for the region’s Muslims in other ways also. For decades the leaders in the Middle East were viewed by their own countryman as well as the outside world as corrupt, brutal, tinpot dictators who were completely dependent upon their cold war foreign allies (depending upon the side in the cold war that those leaders were part of) or their coercive state infrastructures for their existences. The impression about these leaders was that they only thought about themselves or their clans, at the best. For the first time, Islamic republic presented something more than just another regime or another government to the people in the Middle East as well as to the developing world in general. It presented some new ideas, some new thoughts, which Middle Eastern people have not heard for a long time. For a long time Middle East could see a bunch of honest, ideologically committed people as leaders during the Islamic republic. These leaders of Islamic revolution, unlike some of their gulf Arab counterparts, did not lead their lives in the ivory tower, away from the views of the common citizen. The Middle Eastern people could easily identify themselves with these people.

In the end one has to say that Islamic republic is an experiment, which tries to establish the fundamentals of a modern republic without compromising on the basic tenets of Islam. It is also an attempt to employ Islamic thought as well Islamic ideas into building a modern nation state. This idea behind Islamic revolution is very ambitious and like many other revolutions before it, this revolution also faces plenty of challenges. In the end, any student of history will have to say that revolutions do not fail because of external enmity but they fail when their ideas are no longer able to attract interest among the common people. It will be interesting to see in the coming years and decades what fate awaits Islamic revolution but it can certainly be said that Islamic republic is certainly going to keep a very long and lingering legacy among the people in the world who does not believe that human faith and politics should not influence each other.