I remember very clearly an ad on CNN, just days after 9/11. The ad said something like this; “do not forget it is not PLA, it is not Al-Qaida , it is not Hezbollah or Hamas that we are fighting ; what we are fighting is hatred” , then the announcer of the ad stopped a little bit and then added “and it is winning…”
At the time of 9/11, I was just another 19-year old just about to start my life in college; but that particular ad had remained fixated in my memory and as I start to write this just two hours before the 10-th anniversary on 9/11 would commence, the message of that ad still remains fresh in my mind.
Leaders of America had the support of the whole world behind them after 9/11, so much shocked and horrified the World was at those attacks that even the Islamic republic of Iran , the avowed enemy of America ; had offered them cooperation and a permanent end to hostilities in exchange of equal treatment.
What was the reaction of President Bush? Instead of accepting the gratitude of the World, he acted with a mindset to remake the World. He declared Iran as part of an “axis of evil” and followed up with sanctions and covert operations for “regime change”. America would remake the World into her own democratic image, he thundered to the World in his now famous 2002 “axis of evil” address. Maybe it was the outburst of that quintessential American attitude called “American exceptionalism” which always considers itself as part of a divine mission to outdo all wrongs in the World as well as converting the whole World into America’s image.
But what about the American people? What about the average American? Why did he not come to the same understanding the rest of the World had about some of the policies that his leaders were taking on his name? 9/11 not only changed America but it also changed the average American. The average American went into a retreat into a make believe world where he restricts his education about the world to the posts in social networking sites and demagogic websites. In the end, the average American did not bother much when Iraq was invaded on false pretexts, when those obscenities from Abu Gharib shocked the World, when those who caused the global economic recession in 2008 went home with their compensations intact. In the end, in the land of consumerism and individualism, the average American converted himself from a citizen into a consumer and individual. And the reason why it happened? It was the same old reason as shown in that ad after 9/11, it was the sense of hatred; it was the sense of fear; it was the sense of “being wronged” ; it was this sense which did not allow America to become normal and has not allowed her to become normal ever since. The primitive sense of taking revenge and the more primitive sense of existential fear had overpowered the average American so much that he remains stuck to his viewpoint about a cruel World coming to destroy his beloved America.
America was always considered a land of abundant opportunities for the worthy to take; it was the land where you can think about taking your chances in life that you want to take. America believed about opening herself to the World. Now what has happened ever since that fateful day? America did not allow its ports to be operated by Dubai Port City because it feared that terrorists might snick in; America closed its doors to the people of Gaza when they elected Hamas in a democratic election in 2006; President Bush is alleged to have even threatened to bomb the Al-Jazeera offices because he was not happy with the news.
In short, 9/11 was a day that made America stop being America. It was the day that de-Americanized America.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
A changed World-middle east a decade after 9-11-Part-2
Introduction
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11. In my previous writing,
I discussed the changes that has taken place in the West Asian region in the decade
gone by. Now in this article I would like to discuss some possible scenarios that could emerge into the coming decade ahead.
The Return of the Turks
The most significant event of the decade gone by has probably been the reemergence of Turkey as an independent player in the region. Since the founding of the Turkish republic and throughout the cold war, Turkey has been largely content to follow the roles and responsibilities that it was asked to play by its Western patrons. The ruling elite of Turkey which consisted largely of the Turkish Westernized military hierarchy as well as the Western-educated sections of Turkish intelligentsia , all favored this position whereby Turkey had largely restricted and relegated itself to a small regional player.
With the election of the Justice and Development party in Turkey in 2002, things have changed significantly. This new Turkish government decided to take an independent position vis a vis the West Asian and North African region. By taking this new direction Turkey is expected to play a broader and much prominent role in the region and beyond, something that has not been seen for a long time.
At present Turkey and Israel are logged in a conflagration over the Israeli blockade over Gaza. This also has to be seen in a broader angle whereby Turkey is looking to become an important player in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The Eastern Mediterranean is said to be enriched with natural gas and other vital mineral resources. At present Greek Cypriots and Israel are said to be in collaboration for exploration of these natural gas fields. As the patron of Turkish Cypriots, Turkey is expected to become involved in the matter. If Turkey wants to play its erstwhile historical role of maintaining order and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean region, then surely it has to confront the existing interests in the region. At present, Israel with its naval blockade over Gaza, does not allow any other player to establish itself in the regime. So one can only expect the conflagration between Turkey and Israel to continue in the coming decade over the issue of maintaining stability and order in the Mediterranean region.
The Turkish-Israeli conflagration has another wider angle. Since the Turks are looking to project themselves as a new power in the region, Turks would love to be seen in the region as the strong and just Muslim warrior fighting a just cause against the unjust Israel. So this is a significantly new angle to the equation of the wider region.
The recent “Arab Spring” has given the Turks a great opportunity to strengthen its ties with the people in the region. The Turks, who have got religious and cultural as well as historical ties with the region, would welcome the opportunity to connect with new set-ups in the region whereby popular participation is given more importance. The Justice and development Party considers itself as a movement challenging existing status quo in their own country whereby it took on the power of Turkish military and socialist elite and won. Understandably it wants to see the Arabs also do the same in their own countries. Despite some initial mistakes, Turkey has been steadfastly supporting the popular movements in the Arab countries with the hope that they will overthrow the ailing, archaic regimes in these countries and a new partnership would emerge between Turks and the people of the region, leading them to a new order, much more peaceful and prosperous in nature.
The main players emerge in the new great Game
As of today there are four major players in the region. They are Turkey, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Out of all the four major powers Israel and Saudi Arabia can be at best described as status-quo powers since the basic intention of these two powers is to preserve the existing order. For Israel , the preservation of the status quo is in terms of maintaining its hold over the territories it has occupied since the six-day war in the occupied West Bank and in the Golan Heights and for Saudi Arabian ruling elite nothing is much important than the continuation of the ruling of the House of Saud in the Hejaj region.
Turkey and Iran are the players who want to change the existing status quo in the region but the two do not have a singular approach in solving the problems due to their different historical experiences. The reactions of both the two countries towards the recent popular movements in the region are also variable. The two countries have differed significantly over the issue of popular uprising in Syria. Elsewhere both countries are more or less on the same wavelength when it comes to establishment of new and more democratic regimes in Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere in the region.
It is almost a foregone conclusion that following the toppling of autocratic regimes in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, there will be popular movements demanding a greater say in political as well as socio-economic participation in the gulf region. The Bahrain regime recently crushed another popular movement in its territory. The fact that the gulf regimes are mindful of popular discontent in their territories is evident from two examples, the Saudi leadership announcing more grants to its religious allies in the Kingdom and the Emirati and other Gulf establishments investing a lot on “hired guns” i.e. private security companies like Blackwater (now known as Xe) since they are no longer able to trust their own troops.
Both Turkey and Iran are expected to encourage and support popular movements demanding greater political participation in these gulf kingdoms in the coming decade. This is one of their significant ways to change the status quo in the region. However, there may be some competition between the two over influencing these nascent popular movements in the gulf region.
Role of the West
So far the role of the Western states towards the “Arab spring” has been mixed bag to say the least. They were taken aback when their allies in Egypt and Tunisia were toppled but they came back quickly with their support for the Libyan opposition. However I do not expect these Western states to support any popular movement in the Gulf States which may harm the status quo.
The West and the US in particular has a lot to lose in terms of influence in the post Arab Spring-West Asia. Historically, the American support of Israel has been the biggest impediment for improving the American image in the Arab world. If the USA goes on to stop the Palestinians to form their own state then there will be strong opposition from the newly democratic and free Arab countries. There is a strong possibility that if the USA does not encourage its allies in Gulf to significantly help popular participation in their affairs, there is a strong possibility that the popular hostility towards the US will continue to grow in the coming decade.
Turkey is in the best position to reap rewards from the Arab spring. As an emerging Muslim democracy with strong economic credentials as well as closer historical and spiritual ties to the region, Turkey seems to be in the best position to be recognized as a model by the newly emerging set-ups in the region. Iran would also be in a much more strengthened position since the Arab spring would also enable Iran to influence the new set-ups in the Arab world. This is clearly evident with the willingness on the part of the new governing council in Egypt to establish ties with Iran.
For historical and geo-political reasons it is quite likely that the West in general and the Americans in particular would side with the status-quo powers of Israel and Saudi Arabia to preserve their existing interests in the region. That would increasingly ensure a conflict of interest between the West and Turkey as well as the ongoing hostility between Iran and the West.
Conclusion
The end of the decade in the West Asia has seen new possibilities and new changes some of which have been hitherto unthinkable. The constant conflict between the status-quo powers and their challengers will probably be the most significant feature of the new West Asia. However no one can deny the possibility of any unthinkable event from an unexpected quarter threatening to unhinge the whole balance of the region.
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11. In my previous writing,
I discussed the changes that has taken place in the West Asian region in the decade
gone by. Now in this article I would like to discuss some possible scenarios that could emerge into the coming decade ahead.
The Return of the Turks
The most significant event of the decade gone by has probably been the reemergence of Turkey as an independent player in the region. Since the founding of the Turkish republic and throughout the cold war, Turkey has been largely content to follow the roles and responsibilities that it was asked to play by its Western patrons. The ruling elite of Turkey which consisted largely of the Turkish Westernized military hierarchy as well as the Western-educated sections of Turkish intelligentsia , all favored this position whereby Turkey had largely restricted and relegated itself to a small regional player.
With the election of the Justice and Development party in Turkey in 2002, things have changed significantly. This new Turkish government decided to take an independent position vis a vis the West Asian and North African region. By taking this new direction Turkey is expected to play a broader and much prominent role in the region and beyond, something that has not been seen for a long time.
At present Turkey and Israel are logged in a conflagration over the Israeli blockade over Gaza. This also has to be seen in a broader angle whereby Turkey is looking to become an important player in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The Eastern Mediterranean is said to be enriched with natural gas and other vital mineral resources. At present Greek Cypriots and Israel are said to be in collaboration for exploration of these natural gas fields. As the patron of Turkish Cypriots, Turkey is expected to become involved in the matter. If Turkey wants to play its erstwhile historical role of maintaining order and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean region, then surely it has to confront the existing interests in the region. At present, Israel with its naval blockade over Gaza, does not allow any other player to establish itself in the regime. So one can only expect the conflagration between Turkey and Israel to continue in the coming decade over the issue of maintaining stability and order in the Mediterranean region.
The Turkish-Israeli conflagration has another wider angle. Since the Turks are looking to project themselves as a new power in the region, Turks would love to be seen in the region as the strong and just Muslim warrior fighting a just cause against the unjust Israel. So this is a significantly new angle to the equation of the wider region.
The recent “Arab Spring” has given the Turks a great opportunity to strengthen its ties with the people in the region. The Turks, who have got religious and cultural as well as historical ties with the region, would welcome the opportunity to connect with new set-ups in the region whereby popular participation is given more importance. The Justice and development Party considers itself as a movement challenging existing status quo in their own country whereby it took on the power of Turkish military and socialist elite and won. Understandably it wants to see the Arabs also do the same in their own countries. Despite some initial mistakes, Turkey has been steadfastly supporting the popular movements in the Arab countries with the hope that they will overthrow the ailing, archaic regimes in these countries and a new partnership would emerge between Turks and the people of the region, leading them to a new order, much more peaceful and prosperous in nature.
The main players emerge in the new great Game
As of today there are four major players in the region. They are Turkey, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Out of all the four major powers Israel and Saudi Arabia can be at best described as status-quo powers since the basic intention of these two powers is to preserve the existing order. For Israel , the preservation of the status quo is in terms of maintaining its hold over the territories it has occupied since the six-day war in the occupied West Bank and in the Golan Heights and for Saudi Arabian ruling elite nothing is much important than the continuation of the ruling of the House of Saud in the Hejaj region.
Turkey and Iran are the players who want to change the existing status quo in the region but the two do not have a singular approach in solving the problems due to their different historical experiences. The reactions of both the two countries towards the recent popular movements in the region are also variable. The two countries have differed significantly over the issue of popular uprising in Syria. Elsewhere both countries are more or less on the same wavelength when it comes to establishment of new and more democratic regimes in Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere in the region.
It is almost a foregone conclusion that following the toppling of autocratic regimes in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, there will be popular movements demanding a greater say in political as well as socio-economic participation in the gulf region. The Bahrain regime recently crushed another popular movement in its territory. The fact that the gulf regimes are mindful of popular discontent in their territories is evident from two examples, the Saudi leadership announcing more grants to its religious allies in the Kingdom and the Emirati and other Gulf establishments investing a lot on “hired guns” i.e. private security companies like Blackwater (now known as Xe) since they are no longer able to trust their own troops.
Both Turkey and Iran are expected to encourage and support popular movements demanding greater political participation in these gulf kingdoms in the coming decade. This is one of their significant ways to change the status quo in the region. However, there may be some competition between the two over influencing these nascent popular movements in the gulf region.
Role of the West
So far the role of the Western states towards the “Arab spring” has been mixed bag to say the least. They were taken aback when their allies in Egypt and Tunisia were toppled but they came back quickly with their support for the Libyan opposition. However I do not expect these Western states to support any popular movement in the Gulf States which may harm the status quo.
The West and the US in particular has a lot to lose in terms of influence in the post Arab Spring-West Asia. Historically, the American support of Israel has been the biggest impediment for improving the American image in the Arab world. If the USA goes on to stop the Palestinians to form their own state then there will be strong opposition from the newly democratic and free Arab countries. There is a strong possibility that if the USA does not encourage its allies in Gulf to significantly help popular participation in their affairs, there is a strong possibility that the popular hostility towards the US will continue to grow in the coming decade.
Turkey is in the best position to reap rewards from the Arab spring. As an emerging Muslim democracy with strong economic credentials as well as closer historical and spiritual ties to the region, Turkey seems to be in the best position to be recognized as a model by the newly emerging set-ups in the region. Iran would also be in a much more strengthened position since the Arab spring would also enable Iran to influence the new set-ups in the Arab world. This is clearly evident with the willingness on the part of the new governing council in Egypt to establish ties with Iran.
For historical and geo-political reasons it is quite likely that the West in general and the Americans in particular would side with the status-quo powers of Israel and Saudi Arabia to preserve their existing interests in the region. That would increasingly ensure a conflict of interest between the West and Turkey as well as the ongoing hostility between Iran and the West.
Conclusion
The end of the decade in the West Asia has seen new possibilities and new changes some of which have been hitherto unthinkable. The constant conflict between the status-quo powers and their challengers will probably be the most significant feature of the new West Asia. However no one can deny the possibility of any unthinkable event from an unexpected quarter threatening to unhinge the whole balance of the region.
A changed World-middle east a decade after 9-11-Part-1
Introduction
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11.
The shattered status Quo
The World before 9/11
Prior to 9/11, the American policy in the region can be summarized in the following terms:
1. The oil-producing countries in the region should continue to sell fossil fuels to the West at a fairly acceptable market price.
2. They should not do anything that makes Israelis feel endangered.
3. None of them should do anything rash like setting up of a nuclear-industry that may endanger this status quo.
The countries in the region generally adhered to these terms and conditions as dictated by the superpower of the day. Most of the countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain were happy to host American troops on their soil. Countries like Egypt and Jordan had extensive peace treaties with Israel and they in general followed those peace treaties consistently. Even the regime of Saddam Hussain which wanted to create its new rules and regulations in the region , was contained through sanctions and no-fly zones.There were countries like Iran and Syria who opposed these terms and conditions but in the end they did nothing which can be categorized as substantial for changing the status quo in the region. Even these countries such as Iran and Syria restricted their opposition towards these western terms and conditions by employing only small baby steps such as deploying fierce rhetoric at the United Nations or providing support to the groups like Hezbollah and Hamas who have been resisting against Israeli policies in Lebanon or in the occupied Palestinian territories. Even this provision of support towards Hezbollah or Hamas by Iran and Syria can in no way be considered as threatening the very existence of Israel let alone challenging the status quo of American power in the region. The example of Saddam had taught the independent-minded regimes of the region to restrict their opposition towards the American-imposed order only in superficial terms.
The World since 9/11
The changed popular perception about America: Before 9/11, the “American dream” was the most popular imagination in large parts of the West Asian populations including in countries like Iran. How popular America was in Iran can be gauged by the fact that after 9/11, it was the Iranian commoners who performed candle light vigils for the victims of 9/11 and even the Iranian government which has called America “the great Satan” offered a strategic peace deal to the Bush administration which included normalization of all relations and cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan in exchange for acceptance of the Islamic system in Iran. The American concept of Individualism that supports the right of the individual to live his life according to his own wishes and free from the dictates of the powerful state was something that was cherished by a population long suffering from archaic authoritarian rule and looking for opportunities for improving their lives. Although many conservative groups in the region detested the promiscuous lifestyles of some of the American popular cultural icons but the Average man on the street certainly did not consider America as “the great Satan” as some of the regional leaders claimed it to be.
One of the major objectives of the perpetrators of 9/11 was to ensure that America is perceived by the people in the region as the greatest existential enemy fighting against the Muslims since the days of Abu Jehl , the Crusaders and the Mongol hordes of Halagu Khan. They had calculated on a harsh and disproportional response from America in the aftermath of 9/11. President Bush obliged them by first spurring the Iranian offer of strategic détente when he called Iran as part of an “axis of evil” in his state of the Union address in 2002 and then in 2003 when he decided to Invade Iraq on the premise of Weapons of mass destructions. As more and more examples of the harsh and panicked American response (often bordering on brutality) to 9/11 came into the public fore, like the depraved activities in Guantanamo bay and in the Abu Gharib prison as well as the increasingly large number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of the American troops, the genuine public support that America had enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 seemed to dissipate fast.
The increasingly hostile attitude that the Muslim communities and individuals faced in many parts of the Western world after the 9/11 events had also made a deep impact in the psyches of the people in the wider Western Asian region. The frequent and humiliating security checks at the airports, the extraordinary renditions of people and the torturous scenes from the prisons like Bagram, Guantanamo bay and Abu Gharib all have made permanent impact upon the psyches of the Muslims living in the West and elsewhere. The vicious propaganda and derogatory commentary coming from some Western intellectuals targeting Muslims also have seriously impacted in the formation of the Muslim mindset towards America and the West in general.
The persistent support that the successive administrations have provided towards Israel over the last decade even towards acts like the economic blockade of the Gazastrip, expansion of unilateral settlements in the West Bank, the operation Cast Lead and the most recent incident of Israeli killing of the Turkish peace activists in the Mavi Marmara vessel, also has created a perception of an America which is blind towards Israeli actions because of its “special relationship” with Israel.
As a result, American model and “American dream” have lost most of its hollowed ground in the minds of the people in West Asian region. A measure of this phenomenon is the surprisingly low support America has among the people of Turkey, one of the strongest pillars of American support in the region. America did not help the matters when it paraded a group of blindfolded Turkish soldiers in front of the Television cameras immediately after the Iraq invasion in 2003. It also did not help when the American leadership sat silent when Israeli soldiers gunned down Hakan Dogan , a 18-year old American citizen of Turkish descent onboard Mavi Marmara.
A new beginning for Turkey:
The decade saw the emergence of a new beginning in Turkish foreign policy. Hitherto Turkey was content to play the role of the contractor
of Western policies in the region. But since the rise of the ruling Justice and Development Party from 2002, the Turkish policies have been set on a new course which wants to see the region from its own viewpoint and not from the eyes of its Western patrons. This apparently independent-looking Turkish policy, pioneered by Ahmet Dovutoglu, the foreign minister of Turkey, has been referred to as “Zero problem with the neighbors”. As a part of its independent foreign policy, Turkey has decided to expand and nurture more extensive political and economic ties to all of its neighbors including Iran and Syria, raising quite a lot of concerned-looking eyebrows in the Western capitals.
The aspect of Turkish foreign policy which has raised most concern in the Western World is the increasingly confrontational attitude Turkey has projected towards Israel, its erstwhile strong alley in the region. The Turkish spat with Israel started when the prime minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out from the Davos forum in 2009 in protest of Israel’s operation cast lead on Gaza which has lead to a lot of civilian deaths in Gaza. The difference of opinion between Israel and Turkey turned to open hostility when an Israeli raid upon the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara killed a number of Turkish peace activists including an 18-year old American from Turkish origin. Recently after the UN Palmer commission report on the incident, Turkey has decided to suspend all of its defense ties with Israel and has recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv.
The influence of Iran grows:
The US-invasion of Iraq removed the biggest thorn on the side of the Islamic republic, the regime of Saddam Hussain. The US also had removed another regional rival of Iran, Taliban from power in Afghanistan, only a year and half ago. Although there have been lots of speculations among pundits about the exact set of reasons behind President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq but surely allowing the Islamic republic to play a major role in the post-war political efforts in that country was not one of them. But this has been exactly the outcome of the US-led invasion in the country. Following both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, parties with strong ties to Iran have come to power in Iran.
The rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon following the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon and the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections as late as in 2009 also has enabled Iran to influence events very close to the borders of its arch-foe, Israel.
The recent toppling of the secular regimes in Egypt and Libya would also enable Iran to build relations with the nascent popular movements in these countries. The Islamic republic has long sought to portray the secular pro-Western regimes in these countries as obstacles hindering an unified regional effort against Israel , so naturally it is no surprise that Iran is trying to foster stronger links with these post-Arab Spring set ups in the regions. The recent opening of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian authorities to allow two Iranian navy ships to pass through the passage is an indication of this changed approach.
The seculars fall, the religious rise up:
The popular spontaneous movements that swept the Arab world for demanding change have seen secular governments being toppled in Tunisia, Egypt and in Libya. With the fall of these regimes, one can see the rise of religious-leaning groups like Al-Nahda in Tunisia and Muslim brotherhood in Egypt coming into prominence. The fall of the secular regimes have seen widespread chaos and uncertainty in the region; the religious parties can hope for more support from the masses in near future since they are the only ones with a strong organizational base as well as a consistent and coherent message and policy to solve the many problems that the people of the region suffer from. So clearly, the coming decade could see the religious parties rise in influence in most of these post-secular countries in the region.
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11.
The shattered status Quo
The World before 9/11
Prior to 9/11, the American policy in the region can be summarized in the following terms:
1. The oil-producing countries in the region should continue to sell fossil fuels to the West at a fairly acceptable market price.
2. They should not do anything that makes Israelis feel endangered.
3. None of them should do anything rash like setting up of a nuclear-industry that may endanger this status quo.
The countries in the region generally adhered to these terms and conditions as dictated by the superpower of the day. Most of the countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain were happy to host American troops on their soil. Countries like Egypt and Jordan had extensive peace treaties with Israel and they in general followed those peace treaties consistently. Even the regime of Saddam Hussain which wanted to create its new rules and regulations in the region , was contained through sanctions and no-fly zones.There were countries like Iran and Syria who opposed these terms and conditions but in the end they did nothing which can be categorized as substantial for changing the status quo in the region. Even these countries such as Iran and Syria restricted their opposition towards these western terms and conditions by employing only small baby steps such as deploying fierce rhetoric at the United Nations or providing support to the groups like Hezbollah and Hamas who have been resisting against Israeli policies in Lebanon or in the occupied Palestinian territories. Even this provision of support towards Hezbollah or Hamas by Iran and Syria can in no way be considered as threatening the very existence of Israel let alone challenging the status quo of American power in the region. The example of Saddam had taught the independent-minded regimes of the region to restrict their opposition towards the American-imposed order only in superficial terms.
The World since 9/11
The changed popular perception about America: Before 9/11, the “American dream” was the most popular imagination in large parts of the West Asian populations including in countries like Iran. How popular America was in Iran can be gauged by the fact that after 9/11, it was the Iranian commoners who performed candle light vigils for the victims of 9/11 and even the Iranian government which has called America “the great Satan” offered a strategic peace deal to the Bush administration which included normalization of all relations and cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan in exchange for acceptance of the Islamic system in Iran. The American concept of Individualism that supports the right of the individual to live his life according to his own wishes and free from the dictates of the powerful state was something that was cherished by a population long suffering from archaic authoritarian rule and looking for opportunities for improving their lives. Although many conservative groups in the region detested the promiscuous lifestyles of some of the American popular cultural icons but the Average man on the street certainly did not consider America as “the great Satan” as some of the regional leaders claimed it to be.
One of the major objectives of the perpetrators of 9/11 was to ensure that America is perceived by the people in the region as the greatest existential enemy fighting against the Muslims since the days of Abu Jehl , the Crusaders and the Mongol hordes of Halagu Khan. They had calculated on a harsh and disproportional response from America in the aftermath of 9/11. President Bush obliged them by first spurring the Iranian offer of strategic détente when he called Iran as part of an “axis of evil” in his state of the Union address in 2002 and then in 2003 when he decided to Invade Iraq on the premise of Weapons of mass destructions. As more and more examples of the harsh and panicked American response (often bordering on brutality) to 9/11 came into the public fore, like the depraved activities in Guantanamo bay and in the Abu Gharib prison as well as the increasingly large number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of the American troops, the genuine public support that America had enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 seemed to dissipate fast.
The increasingly hostile attitude that the Muslim communities and individuals faced in many parts of the Western world after the 9/11 events had also made a deep impact in the psyches of the people in the wider Western Asian region. The frequent and humiliating security checks at the airports, the extraordinary renditions of people and the torturous scenes from the prisons like Bagram, Guantanamo bay and Abu Gharib all have made permanent impact upon the psyches of the Muslims living in the West and elsewhere. The vicious propaganda and derogatory commentary coming from some Western intellectuals targeting Muslims also have seriously impacted in the formation of the Muslim mindset towards America and the West in general.
The persistent support that the successive administrations have provided towards Israel over the last decade even towards acts like the economic blockade of the Gazastrip, expansion of unilateral settlements in the West Bank, the operation Cast Lead and the most recent incident of Israeli killing of the Turkish peace activists in the Mavi Marmara vessel, also has created a perception of an America which is blind towards Israeli actions because of its “special relationship” with Israel.
As a result, American model and “American dream” have lost most of its hollowed ground in the minds of the people in West Asian region. A measure of this phenomenon is the surprisingly low support America has among the people of Turkey, one of the strongest pillars of American support in the region. America did not help the matters when it paraded a group of blindfolded Turkish soldiers in front of the Television cameras immediately after the Iraq invasion in 2003. It also did not help when the American leadership sat silent when Israeli soldiers gunned down Hakan Dogan , a 18-year old American citizen of Turkish descent onboard Mavi Marmara.
A new beginning for Turkey:
The decade saw the emergence of a new beginning in Turkish foreign policy. Hitherto Turkey was content to play the role of the contractor
of Western policies in the region. But since the rise of the ruling Justice and Development Party from 2002, the Turkish policies have been set on a new course which wants to see the region from its own viewpoint and not from the eyes of its Western patrons. This apparently independent-looking Turkish policy, pioneered by Ahmet Dovutoglu, the foreign minister of Turkey, has been referred to as “Zero problem with the neighbors”. As a part of its independent foreign policy, Turkey has decided to expand and nurture more extensive political and economic ties to all of its neighbors including Iran and Syria, raising quite a lot of concerned-looking eyebrows in the Western capitals.
The aspect of Turkish foreign policy which has raised most concern in the Western World is the increasingly confrontational attitude Turkey has projected towards Israel, its erstwhile strong alley in the region. The Turkish spat with Israel started when the prime minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out from the Davos forum in 2009 in protest of Israel’s operation cast lead on Gaza which has lead to a lot of civilian deaths in Gaza. The difference of opinion between Israel and Turkey turned to open hostility when an Israeli raid upon the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara killed a number of Turkish peace activists including an 18-year old American from Turkish origin. Recently after the UN Palmer commission report on the incident, Turkey has decided to suspend all of its defense ties with Israel and has recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv.
The influence of Iran grows:
The US-invasion of Iraq removed the biggest thorn on the side of the Islamic republic, the regime of Saddam Hussain. The US also had removed another regional rival of Iran, Taliban from power in Afghanistan, only a year and half ago. Although there have been lots of speculations among pundits about the exact set of reasons behind President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq but surely allowing the Islamic republic to play a major role in the post-war political efforts in that country was not one of them. But this has been exactly the outcome of the US-led invasion in the country. Following both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, parties with strong ties to Iran have come to power in Iran.
The rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon following the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon and the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections as late as in 2009 also has enabled Iran to influence events very close to the borders of its arch-foe, Israel.
The recent toppling of the secular regimes in Egypt and Libya would also enable Iran to build relations with the nascent popular movements in these countries. The Islamic republic has long sought to portray the secular pro-Western regimes in these countries as obstacles hindering an unified regional effort against Israel , so naturally it is no surprise that Iran is trying to foster stronger links with these post-Arab Spring set ups in the regions. The recent opening of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian authorities to allow two Iranian navy ships to pass through the passage is an indication of this changed approach.
The seculars fall, the religious rise up:
The popular spontaneous movements that swept the Arab world for demanding change have seen secular governments being toppled in Tunisia, Egypt and in Libya. With the fall of these regimes, one can see the rise of religious-leaning groups like Al-Nahda in Tunisia and Muslim brotherhood in Egypt coming into prominence. The fall of the secular regimes have seen widespread chaos and uncertainty in the region; the religious parties can hope for more support from the masses in near future since they are the only ones with a strong organizational base as well as a consistent and coherent message and policy to solve the many problems that the people of the region suffer from. So clearly, the coming decade could see the religious parties rise in influence in most of these post-secular countries in the region.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The rejection
The impact of small, obscure events in History sometimes leave a lot of impact with them that very few among us can either understand at the time or long afterwards. Sometimes even very small and seemingly without any particular significance can have big impacts upon the turn of events in history.
Sometimes even a very small and trivial thing like say a failed meeting can affect the history in a big way.
The scene is in the small desert town of Yaathrib in Arabia around 640 AD. There is a meeting going on in one of the small houses in the town. A middle-aged Arab was meeting with some of the residents of the town.
The man’s voice was measured and confident. He never spoke a word in hurry but always spoke softly and with a tone that others found the man to be deeply convinced about his views. His eyes radiated with energy and a sense of calmness that some people in the area thought reflected the way Prophets would look. He never hurried in his tone or in his gesture while presenting his viewpoint but always found enough time to organize his words in way that others did not need to think too much to understand his viewpoint. Indeed he was a man whom everybody in the town looked for guidance when in trouble and he knew how to shoulder that responsibility.
Talking with the man was a group of bearded , elderly men who looked confused and sometimes bitterly disappointed. Some of them hushed among themselves “oh by the name of Abraham, how can a man from the tribe of Ishmael talk about the same way the prophets did“. Some of the eyes of the men rolled around in disbelief “how could this man speak truth the same way our holy books say the Prophets spoke truth in their times”.
The man in question looked on at his bearded counterparts and he continued to assert his case. He was introducing himself as the last messenger of God and was constantly asking the rest of the men in room to accept him as such. But most importantly his voice was sure and confident when he talked about his grand plan. He wanted to create a unified community of those who worship the God of Abraham in the city and then propagate the same idea all over the World. He wanted the rest of the men in the room to accept his plan and help him implementing it. His eyes were beaming with great expectations and hope as he spoke.
The other men in the room started to look increasingly concerned. Some of them started to open their holy books and scurry through chapters, it seemed that they were not confident enough with what they themselves were thinking and just needed the holy book to support their views amidst their confusion.
The man increasingly understood the combative nature of the debate. His eyes which were shining brightly with hope of a genius who has just performed his masterpiece, now suddenly began to become sober with sudden realization that his ideas might not have appealed to his audience the way he would have believed in the beginning. Suddenly one of the bearded men looked at the man and said with a voice which seemed to have been coming from a long way away, “By the name of the God of Abraham, we know you are the prophet, by the God of Abraham, we also know we are not going to acknowledge your prophet hood because if we accept today that prophet hood can be bestowed upon a man from the children of Ishmael , then we will lose the status of being the only chosen people of the God of Abraham”. The man after hearing all these words, looked at those who had rejected him, his demeanor did not change, the colors and lines in his face did not darken and the glow that was radiating from his face continued to shine as he spoke with the same confident and unrushed voice which this time had also added a touch of sobriety to itself. The man said “I know I have been bestowed Prophethood by the God of Abraham, it is now my duty to spread his message throughout the World, even if you reject me today.”
“I know I am the last of the messengers that the God of Abraham has sent to the World. The angels of the very same God have told me so. And they also told me that you will never accept the truth. But irrespective of what you people say, I will continue to spread the message that has been bestowed upon me by the God of Abraham till eternity and no one can stop me from doing that.” He left the room as he finished his words.
So this was the story of the most significant rejection of History. This was the story that could probably have changed the World had the turn of events have resulted in an acceptance and not rejection. But ultimately it was the rejection and prejudice that won the day. The consequences that started from that rejection is there for all of us to see even after all these centuries have passed since that rejection took place.
Sometimes even a very small and trivial thing like say a failed meeting can affect the history in a big way.
The scene is in the small desert town of Yaathrib in Arabia around 640 AD. There is a meeting going on in one of the small houses in the town. A middle-aged Arab was meeting with some of the residents of the town.
The man’s voice was measured and confident. He never spoke a word in hurry but always spoke softly and with a tone that others found the man to be deeply convinced about his views. His eyes radiated with energy and a sense of calmness that some people in the area thought reflected the way Prophets would look. He never hurried in his tone or in his gesture while presenting his viewpoint but always found enough time to organize his words in way that others did not need to think too much to understand his viewpoint. Indeed he was a man whom everybody in the town looked for guidance when in trouble and he knew how to shoulder that responsibility.
Talking with the man was a group of bearded , elderly men who looked confused and sometimes bitterly disappointed. Some of them hushed among themselves “oh by the name of Abraham, how can a man from the tribe of Ishmael talk about the same way the prophets did“. Some of the eyes of the men rolled around in disbelief “how could this man speak truth the same way our holy books say the Prophets spoke truth in their times”.
The man in question looked on at his bearded counterparts and he continued to assert his case. He was introducing himself as the last messenger of God and was constantly asking the rest of the men in room to accept him as such. But most importantly his voice was sure and confident when he talked about his grand plan. He wanted to create a unified community of those who worship the God of Abraham in the city and then propagate the same idea all over the World. He wanted the rest of the men in the room to accept his plan and help him implementing it. His eyes were beaming with great expectations and hope as he spoke.
The other men in the room started to look increasingly concerned. Some of them started to open their holy books and scurry through chapters, it seemed that they were not confident enough with what they themselves were thinking and just needed the holy book to support their views amidst their confusion.
The man increasingly understood the combative nature of the debate. His eyes which were shining brightly with hope of a genius who has just performed his masterpiece, now suddenly began to become sober with sudden realization that his ideas might not have appealed to his audience the way he would have believed in the beginning. Suddenly one of the bearded men looked at the man and said with a voice which seemed to have been coming from a long way away, “By the name of the God of Abraham, we know you are the prophet, by the God of Abraham, we also know we are not going to acknowledge your prophet hood because if we accept today that prophet hood can be bestowed upon a man from the children of Ishmael , then we will lose the status of being the only chosen people of the God of Abraham”. The man after hearing all these words, looked at those who had rejected him, his demeanor did not change, the colors and lines in his face did not darken and the glow that was radiating from his face continued to shine as he spoke with the same confident and unrushed voice which this time had also added a touch of sobriety to itself. The man said “I know I have been bestowed Prophethood by the God of Abraham, it is now my duty to spread his message throughout the World, even if you reject me today.”
“I know I am the last of the messengers that the God of Abraham has sent to the World. The angels of the very same God have told me so. And they also told me that you will never accept the truth. But irrespective of what you people say, I will continue to spread the message that has been bestowed upon me by the God of Abraham till eternity and no one can stop me from doing that.” He left the room as he finished his words.
So this was the story of the most significant rejection of History. This was the story that could probably have changed the World had the turn of events have resulted in an acceptance and not rejection. But ultimately it was the rejection and prejudice that won the day. The consequences that started from that rejection is there for all of us to see even after all these centuries have passed since that rejection took place.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
The East should speak up now while the West dithers
Why the West won the day
The second decade of the twenty first century seems to be throwing up exciting times for the millennium-old relationship between the East and the West. The last four centuries have seen the West first overwhelm the East with superior firepower and then influencing it with her ways, the East has been influenced in the same way the vanquished is influenced by the narrative of the victor.
There were fundamental reasons behind the victory of the West over the East in the last four centuries. Firstly, the West had created her own convictions in the form of nation state and market economy. The West was successful to create her own identity because she thought in terms of reason and critical thinking. The West had come to conclusion about her ideas after an extremely messy and bloody debating period where competing ideas fought to death among themselves; the hundred-year war, French revolution and Napoleonic wars. In the end the, the West had decided that market-economy based nation states are the most superior form for organizing and governing human beings.
Another major reason behind the success of the West has been her jealousness to spread her ideas throughout the World. After spending so much time fighting for her ideas, the West had come to conclude that her ideas are the only beneficial ideas for the World and she wanted to spread those ideas around all over the World. Because the Western ideas whether they came from the pens of Calvin and Luther or from the guns of George Washington or Napoleon; had to assert themselves in the face of fierce opposition. As a result the believers in these ideas which survived the opposition considered these ideas as either divinely selected (in case of the idea of American exceptionalism) or universally applicable (in case of ideas emanating out of the French revolution) and wanted to spread it all over the World. When the Puritans arrived in the New World they considered themselves as divinely elected and when the French defeated the Mamlukes in Egypt, they were also convinced about the absolute supremacy of their ideas over whatever the indigenous peoples of these lands could come up with.
The East had stopped producing any idea with global aspirations by this time. The Ottoman Empire which was the last empire from the East to attempt spreading its influence in the West was decaying rapidly by this time; neither India nor China were also in any position thanks to their weak and moribund societies either to develop any ideal conviction nor to attempt any propagation. The consequence was simple: being overwhelmed by the West due to her military superiority and forced to follow and adopt Western ideas and narratives thanks to the failure on the part of East to come out with idea or conviction. For the last four centuries this has been the case so far in the history of humanity.
The picture of change in the 21-st century
In the twenty first century though, finally the picture seem to be changing somewhat. After spending four centuries under the influence of the West finally the East seemingly showing signs of a come back. Now days the fastest growing economies in the World are China and India, the fastest growing economy in Europe is Turkey, Russia is also showing signs of great comeback after economic collapse in the nineties , a record number of billionaires can be found in China , Russia and India whereas the West seem to be reeling under recession and stagnancy. The East has been masters in trade and commerce (the evidence lies in the historic silk routes) for most of the previous two millenniums and the adoption of some of the principles of Western market economy seem to have helped the East to find its roots and strong points in a new and more effective way.
Another interesting case in point is that since the Second World War, the West has not been able to continue her overwhelming military colonization of the Eastern peoples. India and China got liberated from Western colonialism though India did not reject the Western influence; the small nation of Vietnam achieved her national independence by defeating two successive western colonial powers in the face of just two decades, West had to gradually give up most of her empires in Asia and Africa thanks to popular revolts though she did not give up the attempts to influence these lands ; thanks to a group of loyal allies and proxies the West has been able to still project her influence over a broad sway of her previous colonies even after she had to give them all up.
But in the twenty first century the Western ideas are facing challenges for some simple reasons. Throughout the last 60 years of their existences the IMF and the World Bank has given more or less the same prescription to those nations who had the misfortune to knock at their doors; increase taxes on the common people for generating more revenues, privatize all of your nationalized industries (even if they happen to be run well enough under government control), cut down “unnecessary” spending (which by the definitions of the IMF and the World Bank have often included all government subsidies to the needy and vulnerable in the societies of the poor countries). And the IMF and the World Bank has got very little to show for all of these efforts. An Argentina here, another Greece there, these are all the mementos that IMF has to showcase for all its efforts.
The Western idea of popular representative-based democracy is now universally accepted as the most acceptable norm of governance. However the Western attitude towards implementing what she preaches to the rest on democratic tolerance leaves a lot to be desired. From Mossadegh in Iran to Allende in Chile, the West has looked to secure her interests more than adhering to her own self-preached ideals. The United Nations is on the verge of irrelevancy. The Western eagerness to have her own ways has led the West to go against the wishes of the majority of the United Nations in major issues such as Iraq war in 2003, ongoing Israeli-Palestinian issues and the ongoing war (“kinetic action”) in Libya, thereby considerably adding to the general irrelevancy of the institution itself.
The East should put its foot forward
The time is right for the East to assert its own independent position. There are two reasons for which the East needs to come up with its own ideas. Firstly, the East needs her own ideas and laws regarding government and economic management since the time id ripe for the East to shed its dependence on the West for defining how to govern people and finance. Secondly if the East comes up with parallel ideas for governance and economics then the West would be forced to look into her own ideas thus ensuring change in the Western mindset towards the East.
Let us start with economics first. The West has created institutions like the World Bank and the IMF to balance the budgets of the needy countries and spur them to the path of growth. Successive case studies from Argentina to Pakistan show the failures of these approaches and attitudes. It is time for the major non-Western economies, I mean to say China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey and Indonesia to come together and create a global financial institution so as to present a better alternative to the poor and needy nations of the World. The list of countries to the above mentioned could be and should be expanded in future based upon future global trends. These countries which I want to call as the “East” has now sufficient economic muscle behind it in terms of both cash liquidity as well as financial expertise to present an alternative to that of the World Bank or the IMF. The recent economic and mercantile successes of all the above mentioned countries conclude that there are no goods and services in this world that these “Eastern” countries cannot produce with much lower cost and appropriate quality than the West. These successes should propel the “East” to come together and present an alternative institution like the one I mentioned as above. This particular institution can be effective in two counters. One , it will not attach any strings or riders to its agreements with the poor and needy countries in the same way the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund does thereby providing much more economic independence to the governments of the poorer nations and two , it can provide funds for much needed infrastructure improvement in needy areas of the World for example like the recently proposed Turkey-Iran-Pakistan railway as well as improving communication through roads in Central and West Asia and different parts of Africa and Latin America.
The East will not be able to assert its case without using sound strategic, political and military alliances. Unlike the West which is ready in every way to assert her positions with military might the “East” as of now is not looking to transform its economic advantages into concrete military instruments for asserting its interests where those interests clash with that of the West. The organizations like BRICS and SCO should come together for creating an effective military and protecting alliance for protecting its valuable interests in the face of the continuous Western assertion through military alliances like that of NATO.
Now days the battlefield is not restricted to frontlines only but to the minds as well. To win the “battle of hearts and minds” the East should promote think tanks as well as train and use professionals explaining and spreading its ideas all over the World. The emphasis should be both on making the case of the East as well as pointing out the contradictions in the Western economic and political policies which have not been fruitful for the East.
The current global situation indicates that the West is confused about her policies particularly after the 2008 global financial downturn and the recent ongoing events of upheaval in the Western Asia and North African regions. The East though basking in the glory of her achievements in the economic field is yet circumspect and not convinced enough to step into the show. This time in history is the right time for the West after a long time to present its own ideas as a positive alternative to the Western model.
The second decade of the twenty first century seems to be throwing up exciting times for the millennium-old relationship between the East and the West. The last four centuries have seen the West first overwhelm the East with superior firepower and then influencing it with her ways, the East has been influenced in the same way the vanquished is influenced by the narrative of the victor.
There were fundamental reasons behind the victory of the West over the East in the last four centuries. Firstly, the West had created her own convictions in the form of nation state and market economy. The West was successful to create her own identity because she thought in terms of reason and critical thinking. The West had come to conclusion about her ideas after an extremely messy and bloody debating period where competing ideas fought to death among themselves; the hundred-year war, French revolution and Napoleonic wars. In the end the, the West had decided that market-economy based nation states are the most superior form for organizing and governing human beings.
Another major reason behind the success of the West has been her jealousness to spread her ideas throughout the World. After spending so much time fighting for her ideas, the West had come to conclude that her ideas are the only beneficial ideas for the World and she wanted to spread those ideas around all over the World. Because the Western ideas whether they came from the pens of Calvin and Luther or from the guns of George Washington or Napoleon; had to assert themselves in the face of fierce opposition. As a result the believers in these ideas which survived the opposition considered these ideas as either divinely selected (in case of the idea of American exceptionalism) or universally applicable (in case of ideas emanating out of the French revolution) and wanted to spread it all over the World. When the Puritans arrived in the New World they considered themselves as divinely elected and when the French defeated the Mamlukes in Egypt, they were also convinced about the absolute supremacy of their ideas over whatever the indigenous peoples of these lands could come up with.
The East had stopped producing any idea with global aspirations by this time. The Ottoman Empire which was the last empire from the East to attempt spreading its influence in the West was decaying rapidly by this time; neither India nor China were also in any position thanks to their weak and moribund societies either to develop any ideal conviction nor to attempt any propagation. The consequence was simple: being overwhelmed by the West due to her military superiority and forced to follow and adopt Western ideas and narratives thanks to the failure on the part of East to come out with idea or conviction. For the last four centuries this has been the case so far in the history of humanity.
The picture of change in the 21-st century
In the twenty first century though, finally the picture seem to be changing somewhat. After spending four centuries under the influence of the West finally the East seemingly showing signs of a come back. Now days the fastest growing economies in the World are China and India, the fastest growing economy in Europe is Turkey, Russia is also showing signs of great comeback after economic collapse in the nineties , a record number of billionaires can be found in China , Russia and India whereas the West seem to be reeling under recession and stagnancy. The East has been masters in trade and commerce (the evidence lies in the historic silk routes) for most of the previous two millenniums and the adoption of some of the principles of Western market economy seem to have helped the East to find its roots and strong points in a new and more effective way.
Another interesting case in point is that since the Second World War, the West has not been able to continue her overwhelming military colonization of the Eastern peoples. India and China got liberated from Western colonialism though India did not reject the Western influence; the small nation of Vietnam achieved her national independence by defeating two successive western colonial powers in the face of just two decades, West had to gradually give up most of her empires in Asia and Africa thanks to popular revolts though she did not give up the attempts to influence these lands ; thanks to a group of loyal allies and proxies the West has been able to still project her influence over a broad sway of her previous colonies even after she had to give them all up.
But in the twenty first century the Western ideas are facing challenges for some simple reasons. Throughout the last 60 years of their existences the IMF and the World Bank has given more or less the same prescription to those nations who had the misfortune to knock at their doors; increase taxes on the common people for generating more revenues, privatize all of your nationalized industries (even if they happen to be run well enough under government control), cut down “unnecessary” spending (which by the definitions of the IMF and the World Bank have often included all government subsidies to the needy and vulnerable in the societies of the poor countries). And the IMF and the World Bank has got very little to show for all of these efforts. An Argentina here, another Greece there, these are all the mementos that IMF has to showcase for all its efforts.
The Western idea of popular representative-based democracy is now universally accepted as the most acceptable norm of governance. However the Western attitude towards implementing what she preaches to the rest on democratic tolerance leaves a lot to be desired. From Mossadegh in Iran to Allende in Chile, the West has looked to secure her interests more than adhering to her own self-preached ideals. The United Nations is on the verge of irrelevancy. The Western eagerness to have her own ways has led the West to go against the wishes of the majority of the United Nations in major issues such as Iraq war in 2003, ongoing Israeli-Palestinian issues and the ongoing war (“kinetic action”) in Libya, thereby considerably adding to the general irrelevancy of the institution itself.
The East should put its foot forward
The time is right for the East to assert its own independent position. There are two reasons for which the East needs to come up with its own ideas. Firstly, the East needs her own ideas and laws regarding government and economic management since the time id ripe for the East to shed its dependence on the West for defining how to govern people and finance. Secondly if the East comes up with parallel ideas for governance and economics then the West would be forced to look into her own ideas thus ensuring change in the Western mindset towards the East.
Let us start with economics first. The West has created institutions like the World Bank and the IMF to balance the budgets of the needy countries and spur them to the path of growth. Successive case studies from Argentina to Pakistan show the failures of these approaches and attitudes. It is time for the major non-Western economies, I mean to say China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Turkey and Indonesia to come together and create a global financial institution so as to present a better alternative to the poor and needy nations of the World. The list of countries to the above mentioned could be and should be expanded in future based upon future global trends. These countries which I want to call as the “East” has now sufficient economic muscle behind it in terms of both cash liquidity as well as financial expertise to present an alternative to that of the World Bank or the IMF. The recent economic and mercantile successes of all the above mentioned countries conclude that there are no goods and services in this world that these “Eastern” countries cannot produce with much lower cost and appropriate quality than the West. These successes should propel the “East” to come together and present an alternative institution like the one I mentioned as above. This particular institution can be effective in two counters. One , it will not attach any strings or riders to its agreements with the poor and needy countries in the same way the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund does thereby providing much more economic independence to the governments of the poorer nations and two , it can provide funds for much needed infrastructure improvement in needy areas of the World for example like the recently proposed Turkey-Iran-Pakistan railway as well as improving communication through roads in Central and West Asia and different parts of Africa and Latin America.
The East will not be able to assert its case without using sound strategic, political and military alliances. Unlike the West which is ready in every way to assert her positions with military might the “East” as of now is not looking to transform its economic advantages into concrete military instruments for asserting its interests where those interests clash with that of the West. The organizations like BRICS and SCO should come together for creating an effective military and protecting alliance for protecting its valuable interests in the face of the continuous Western assertion through military alliances like that of NATO.
Now days the battlefield is not restricted to frontlines only but to the minds as well. To win the “battle of hearts and minds” the East should promote think tanks as well as train and use professionals explaining and spreading its ideas all over the World. The emphasis should be both on making the case of the East as well as pointing out the contradictions in the Western economic and political policies which have not been fruitful for the East.
The current global situation indicates that the West is confused about her policies particularly after the 2008 global financial downturn and the recent ongoing events of upheaval in the Western Asia and North African regions. The East though basking in the glory of her achievements in the economic field is yet circumspect and not convinced enough to step into the show. This time in history is the right time for the West after a long time to present its own ideas as a positive alternative to the Western model.
While the East sleeps, the West rules
My first reaction after watching Dominic Strauss Kahn affair was to ponder about a little bit and then ask myself a question, what made this ripe, old man do what he has done ? Then I realized this man could think about ... well getting away with all those since he knew he was the head of one of the biggest lending institutions in the World , thereby outside the normal course of law , unaccountable by the normal processes of the law.
The main reason that rich and powerful men like DSK could think of getting away with these kinds of crimes is… well, they are the only game in the town. The IMF and its Bretton-woods twin World Bank are the two most important lending institutions in the World, a place where everyone goes for money when their budget balance sheets are finally in red.
The normal prescription of the IMF and the World Bank to their unfortunate patients (read nations in need of balancing their budgets) is similar: cut down your expanses which often boils down to closing down schools for your children, stopping the treatment of the poor in the hospitals and throwing out the needy elderly without their pension benefits and increase taxes on your people. It is said that “a tree is known by the fruits, it bears”. Well, the IMF has a lot of fruits to its credit, the Argentine crisis, the Asean tigers’ crisis and the recent crisis in Greece , Portugal , Spain and the list can go on and on.
Even after selling so many rotten fruits to the public, the IMF can hope to get away and even the maligned DSK can hope to fight for another day is because there is no other player in the market to compete against the ideas the IMF and the World Bank represent.
Let me be very clear here my readers. The West when she is convinced that she has an idea, she would move heaven and earth to implement that idea and will do everything in her power to make the whole world accept that idea. When the West advises us non-Westerners about the virtues free-market economics, make no mistake that she is convinced about her ideas and she will use all the means at her disposal to make everyone of us adhere to those ideas. Unfortunately, we in the “East” (by “East” I mean those who happen to be outside the realm of the privileged club comprising of EU, US, Japan, Australia, Canada and Israel) have to face the consequences if we happen to be at the wrong end of the implementation of those ideas for example say when an Western World Bank economist becomes the economic advisor of an African country without ever setting foot on the soil of that nation and his policies lead to the sad demise of the economy of that country. The people in that country suffer and the World Bank economist just goes for another assignment.
Now this leads to us to the question; why are we in the “East” not doing anything to prevent all these? The historians tell us that the “East” for example China and India led the World in terms of wealth and trade during most of the times of recorded history except say may last two-three centuries of Western domination. Even now days China and India are the two fastest growing economies in the World, the fastest growing economy in Europe happens to be Turkey, in the Latin America Brazil’s economic growth surpasses that of many of her North American counterparts but still why do the global “East” have to listen to the dictates of those World Bank pundits and those IMF experts even when we know those “advises” (read dictates) have only led to ruin for many of us? The answer, in my view is simple: while we in the East look to be numero uno in terms of GDP growth rates, those in the West look to create ideas and propagate them to us. Since we in the “East” neither create any ideas of our own nor have the conviction to implement and propagate those ideas, we are left to follow what the West gives to us.
Here is my solution to it. I believe this is high time for the major economies in the “East” i.e. China, India, Russia, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Indonesia should come together and create an alternative global financial organization. The above list of the countries must be and should be expandable. I propose that we call this organization “global cooperative bank”. The main function of this institution will be to promote collaboration among different underprivileged (those whom the West shuns for many reasons) countries in the “East” and to help them with their finances and development without the strings and riders, the IMF and the World Bank attaches. This institution could help by investing in the much-needed infrastructure and education projects in Africa, West and Central Asia and Latin America which the West has shunned for various reasons. The fruits of the investments should be shared equally between the underprivileged countries and the investors.
I know there are serious differences between many of us in the “East” but I do believe that we need to come together on this otherwise the West will continue to follow the policy of dividing and ruling over us. And, Yes I know that it will be difficult implementing an organization such as the one I have proposed but I have full confidence if the best of minds from the “East” can come together then surely we will be able to implement alternative ideas like the one I have proposed. I have full confidence in the best of minds in the “East”. And I have strong grounds for my confidence. Last time I checked, I found many of the countries in the “East” for example China and India were running huge trade surpluses over their Western counterparts which goes to show that there are very many goods and services which we in the “East” can produce and export with much lesser cost and assured quality. So if we can do that there is no reason we can not produce ideas which present a better alternative to the World.
There will be two major benefits of the same. The “East” will be able to have her own narrative which it can propose to the West and the West will be able to understand the follies of her own ideas and correct them.
The basic axiom that the market economics fundamentalists teach us is that competition brings improvement in quality of the overall system. I believe the West needs to face some good decent competition in terms of ideas from the “East” and then only we can see a sea change in the global system as we know it. But without that it will be the status quo running on where the East sleeps and the dignity of her women gets compromised by the rich and powerful in the West.
The main reason that rich and powerful men like DSK could think of getting away with these kinds of crimes is… well, they are the only game in the town. The IMF and its Bretton-woods twin World Bank are the two most important lending institutions in the World, a place where everyone goes for money when their budget balance sheets are finally in red.
The normal prescription of the IMF and the World Bank to their unfortunate patients (read nations in need of balancing their budgets) is similar: cut down your expanses which often boils down to closing down schools for your children, stopping the treatment of the poor in the hospitals and throwing out the needy elderly without their pension benefits and increase taxes on your people. It is said that “a tree is known by the fruits, it bears”. Well, the IMF has a lot of fruits to its credit, the Argentine crisis, the Asean tigers’ crisis and the recent crisis in Greece , Portugal , Spain and the list can go on and on.
Even after selling so many rotten fruits to the public, the IMF can hope to get away and even the maligned DSK can hope to fight for another day is because there is no other player in the market to compete against the ideas the IMF and the World Bank represent.
Let me be very clear here my readers. The West when she is convinced that she has an idea, she would move heaven and earth to implement that idea and will do everything in her power to make the whole world accept that idea. When the West advises us non-Westerners about the virtues free-market economics, make no mistake that she is convinced about her ideas and she will use all the means at her disposal to make everyone of us adhere to those ideas. Unfortunately, we in the “East” (by “East” I mean those who happen to be outside the realm of the privileged club comprising of EU, US, Japan, Australia, Canada and Israel) have to face the consequences if we happen to be at the wrong end of the implementation of those ideas for example say when an Western World Bank economist becomes the economic advisor of an African country without ever setting foot on the soil of that nation and his policies lead to the sad demise of the economy of that country. The people in that country suffer and the World Bank economist just goes for another assignment.
Now this leads to us to the question; why are we in the “East” not doing anything to prevent all these? The historians tell us that the “East” for example China and India led the World in terms of wealth and trade during most of the times of recorded history except say may last two-three centuries of Western domination. Even now days China and India are the two fastest growing economies in the World, the fastest growing economy in Europe happens to be Turkey, in the Latin America Brazil’s economic growth surpasses that of many of her North American counterparts but still why do the global “East” have to listen to the dictates of those World Bank pundits and those IMF experts even when we know those “advises” (read dictates) have only led to ruin for many of us? The answer, in my view is simple: while we in the East look to be numero uno in terms of GDP growth rates, those in the West look to create ideas and propagate them to us. Since we in the “East” neither create any ideas of our own nor have the conviction to implement and propagate those ideas, we are left to follow what the West gives to us.
Here is my solution to it. I believe this is high time for the major economies in the “East” i.e. China, India, Russia, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, Indonesia should come together and create an alternative global financial organization. The above list of the countries must be and should be expandable. I propose that we call this organization “global cooperative bank”. The main function of this institution will be to promote collaboration among different underprivileged (those whom the West shuns for many reasons) countries in the “East” and to help them with their finances and development without the strings and riders, the IMF and the World Bank attaches. This institution could help by investing in the much-needed infrastructure and education projects in Africa, West and Central Asia and Latin America which the West has shunned for various reasons. The fruits of the investments should be shared equally between the underprivileged countries and the investors.
I know there are serious differences between many of us in the “East” but I do believe that we need to come together on this otherwise the West will continue to follow the policy of dividing and ruling over us. And, Yes I know that it will be difficult implementing an organization such as the one I have proposed but I have full confidence if the best of minds from the “East” can come together then surely we will be able to implement alternative ideas like the one I have proposed. I have full confidence in the best of minds in the “East”. And I have strong grounds for my confidence. Last time I checked, I found many of the countries in the “East” for example China and India were running huge trade surpluses over their Western counterparts which goes to show that there are very many goods and services which we in the “East” can produce and export with much lesser cost and assured quality. So if we can do that there is no reason we can not produce ideas which present a better alternative to the World.
There will be two major benefits of the same. The “East” will be able to have her own narrative which it can propose to the West and the West will be able to understand the follies of her own ideas and correct them.
The basic axiom that the market economics fundamentalists teach us is that competition brings improvement in quality of the overall system. I believe the West needs to face some good decent competition in terms of ideas from the “East” and then only we can see a sea change in the global system as we know it. But without that it will be the status quo running on where the East sleeps and the dignity of her women gets compromised by the rich and powerful in the West.
Monday, May 16, 2011
The day after the final votes have been counted
During the latest round of various state elections , we could see our great patriotic national media brimming out some very interesting pictures to us. We could see fragile , old men clutching their sticks and going to those vote booths , “they were showing their enthusiasms for the democratic process even at a ripe old age” claimed our mainstream media , we were also shown pictures of how people were voting in the insurgency-affected areas , “democracy won today when people braved their fears to come out and vote” cried our independent-minded , progressive media . As I watched all those pictures , I asked myself why these people bother to vote even by risking their very lives very time ? Does they hope that their lives will be really changed after they have acted upon their right of expressing their popular opinion ?
But think about it my dear readers , do we ever hear the media highlight those same old men after the results have come out ? In our country , we see overwhelmingly the poor people go to vote and the evidence of last 60 years is that their plight by and large remains the same. How many times have we seen our media going to the people after the elections are over ? When the media interviews a person on the voting booth , how many of those media personnel ask whether that person believes his/her wishes will be fulfilled or not after the vote ?
When we do vote for now days do we really think about the issues that we face or we just vote based upon the symbol of a particular party or our liking of a particular leader? We believe that democracy is “of the people, for the people, by the people” but the question is does that really hold true in the 21-st century? Do we really believe that our policy makers have our interests in the back of their minds when they make real, hard, serious policy decisions? If we really look at more than 60 years of our history in this country, that axiom does not hold good. Do we seriously believe that our leaders had our interests in mind when they decided to adopt the five-year plans or for that matter the policies with Pakistan? Do we really believe that our leaders had taken us into confidence when they decided to frame their policies regarding Pakistan or China? Whose interests were on the mind of our leaders when they decided to conduct their policies vis-à-vis the USA after the Bhopal tragedy? When we signed the nuclear energy deal with the USA, whose interests were in the mind of our leaders?
All this brouhaha and razzmatazz about elections and its outcomes hide the plain true fact. Elections distract our perspective from the real issues like unemployment, farmer-suicides or inflations at our hands. We need to ask ourselves this simple question, when we vote, do we vote for ourselves or for the leaders who is being represented on behalf of us?
Now think about this scenario. Suppose I am an Industrialist and I am thinking about bidding for a government tender for constructing a road. Now suppose the cost of the project involves 800 crores and the profit would emerge out as 1000 crores after all costs have been paid. Now as an Industrialist I am thinking about limiting my costs and optimizing my profits. So I offer two main political parties in the state (one is in power and another is in opposition) 100 crore each , for making the cost of the project reduced to 300 crores so that I can optimize my profits from this scenario. Now does this mean corruption? Even if it so how can the system prevent me from doing it since I have both the government and the opposition at the back of my pocket? Now as a voter how can you stop me from doing this?
Let us face the fact, that policymakers in most of the political system (including ours) never think about the common man in the street when they frame their policies. It is also true is that most of the political systems in the world are run by a very small number of people. These are the people who think and take decisions on behalf of others in the system when it comes to the real decision making. That fact is true in any kind of system including the biggest democracy in the world. That is true for all the systems. It is a common trend of mankind to think about themselves while making any decision. The decision makers and leaders in any system also are no exception to this norm. So the normal thing is that when the decision makers take a decision, they normally take it based upon their own interests. The important thing is what can we do to make sure those people think about us when they decide our fates? My sincere question to my dear readers is the system of voting is the only process through which we can remind the decision makers in our system about our preferences and interests?
I understand that it is tough finding out a real solution to this increasing irrelevancy of the Indian voter whereas he is not much needed by the system after the election results are out. After all the system has been in place for such a long time and the average Indian is more or less comfortable with the situation; and why not he should be comfortable? Is this country not an aspiring superpower? Are we not watching our country’s GDP grow by an astonishing 8-9 per cent per year? Did we not just win the World cup? Are we not hosting the IPL currently? Are we not watching new shopping malls and multiplexes crowd out our cities each and every day? So why should we bother even if our leaders struck shady deals behind our backs with foreign or Indian multinationals? After all we have Dhoni and his boys and Bollywood badshahs as well as 9 per cent GDP growth, right? So who cares whether our leaders decide to enrich themselves little bit more or our farmers continue to commit suicides in record numbers?
I do not have any magical solution to this problem. What I can say is that my dear Indian friend, please take a deep breath and think a little bit before you click that button on that AVM. Do not vote a man because either your caste or clan wants you to vote or you like that man’s charisma a little bit more. Vote for the man after being convinced that he can help you resolve your issues in your area after the vote count has ended.
P.S.: This just came to my knowledge. Just after the final votes were counted and a lot of “poribortan” (Bengali for change) took place, the central government decided to increase the fuel prices a little bit more for extracting a little bit more revenue out of the pockets of us. Now go back my dear Indian friend and start the TV. Your favorite IPL team will be batting first!
But think about it my dear readers , do we ever hear the media highlight those same old men after the results have come out ? In our country , we see overwhelmingly the poor people go to vote and the evidence of last 60 years is that their plight by and large remains the same. How many times have we seen our media going to the people after the elections are over ? When the media interviews a person on the voting booth , how many of those media personnel ask whether that person believes his/her wishes will be fulfilled or not after the vote ?
When we do vote for now days do we really think about the issues that we face or we just vote based upon the symbol of a particular party or our liking of a particular leader? We believe that democracy is “of the people, for the people, by the people” but the question is does that really hold true in the 21-st century? Do we really believe that our policy makers have our interests in the back of their minds when they make real, hard, serious policy decisions? If we really look at more than 60 years of our history in this country, that axiom does not hold good. Do we seriously believe that our leaders had our interests in mind when they decided to adopt the five-year plans or for that matter the policies with Pakistan? Do we really believe that our leaders had taken us into confidence when they decided to frame their policies regarding Pakistan or China? Whose interests were on the mind of our leaders when they decided to conduct their policies vis-à-vis the USA after the Bhopal tragedy? When we signed the nuclear energy deal with the USA, whose interests were in the mind of our leaders?
All this brouhaha and razzmatazz about elections and its outcomes hide the plain true fact. Elections distract our perspective from the real issues like unemployment, farmer-suicides or inflations at our hands. We need to ask ourselves this simple question, when we vote, do we vote for ourselves or for the leaders who is being represented on behalf of us?
Now think about this scenario. Suppose I am an Industrialist and I am thinking about bidding for a government tender for constructing a road. Now suppose the cost of the project involves 800 crores and the profit would emerge out as 1000 crores after all costs have been paid. Now as an Industrialist I am thinking about limiting my costs and optimizing my profits. So I offer two main political parties in the state (one is in power and another is in opposition) 100 crore each , for making the cost of the project reduced to 300 crores so that I can optimize my profits from this scenario. Now does this mean corruption? Even if it so how can the system prevent me from doing it since I have both the government and the opposition at the back of my pocket? Now as a voter how can you stop me from doing this?
Let us face the fact, that policymakers in most of the political system (including ours) never think about the common man in the street when they frame their policies. It is also true is that most of the political systems in the world are run by a very small number of people. These are the people who think and take decisions on behalf of others in the system when it comes to the real decision making. That fact is true in any kind of system including the biggest democracy in the world. That is true for all the systems. It is a common trend of mankind to think about themselves while making any decision. The decision makers and leaders in any system also are no exception to this norm. So the normal thing is that when the decision makers take a decision, they normally take it based upon their own interests. The important thing is what can we do to make sure those people think about us when they decide our fates? My sincere question to my dear readers is the system of voting is the only process through which we can remind the decision makers in our system about our preferences and interests?
I understand that it is tough finding out a real solution to this increasing irrelevancy of the Indian voter whereas he is not much needed by the system after the election results are out. After all the system has been in place for such a long time and the average Indian is more or less comfortable with the situation; and why not he should be comfortable? Is this country not an aspiring superpower? Are we not watching our country’s GDP grow by an astonishing 8-9 per cent per year? Did we not just win the World cup? Are we not hosting the IPL currently? Are we not watching new shopping malls and multiplexes crowd out our cities each and every day? So why should we bother even if our leaders struck shady deals behind our backs with foreign or Indian multinationals? After all we have Dhoni and his boys and Bollywood badshahs as well as 9 per cent GDP growth, right? So who cares whether our leaders decide to enrich themselves little bit more or our farmers continue to commit suicides in record numbers?
I do not have any magical solution to this problem. What I can say is that my dear Indian friend, please take a deep breath and think a little bit before you click that button on that AVM. Do not vote a man because either your caste or clan wants you to vote or you like that man’s charisma a little bit more. Vote for the man after being convinced that he can help you resolve your issues in your area after the vote count has ended.
P.S.: This just came to my knowledge. Just after the final votes were counted and a lot of “poribortan” (Bengali for change) took place, the central government decided to increase the fuel prices a little bit more for extracting a little bit more revenue out of the pockets of us. Now go back my dear Indian friend and start the TV. Your favorite IPL team will be batting first!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)