Real flashpoints: Palestine & Kashmir

Real flashpoints: Palestine & Kashmir

Mohammad Jamil

The world is in turmoil due to unresolved issues of Palestinian state and Kashmir. And unless these issues are resolved on the basis of justice vis-à-vis implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions, the threat of wars will continue looming large. Renowned philosopher Bertrand Russel in his essay ‘The Future of Mankind’ had mentioned three possibilities: “1) The end of human life, perhaps of all life on our planet; 2) A reversion to barbarism after a catastrophic diminution of the population of the globe, 3) A unification of the world under a single government possessing a monopoly of all the major weapons of war”. The philosopher was hopeful that the US will acquire that status of having monopoly of major weapons of war, which is not possible in the presence of about a dozen known and not known nuclear states with credible delivery system. And it would be puerile nonsense to assume that Russia, China and others would destroy their nukes so that the US keeps the monopoly.

Of course, the US was successful in defeating the former Soviet Union through proxy war but in case of a declared war the first two possibilities mentioned above could surely be realized. Anyhow, being the sole super power, the US has certain responsibilities and the foremost is to help the weak countries against threats to their survival by the strong and mighty. But the US did not assume that role and instead was helping usurpers and lending unqualified support to Israel, which had usurped Arab lands, and was showing utter disregard to the United Nations Security Council resolutions. India has also the history of intransigence and is not willing to implement United Nations Security Council resolutions giving the Kashmiris the right to join Pakistan or India through a plebiscite to be held under the aegis of the UN. It is indeed encouraging to note that Obama administration has tried to persuade India to start the stalled composite dialogue with Pakistan. And admitting that to win the war on terror Pakistan’s role is crucial.

President Obama in his address at Cairo in the first week of June had given soothing effect to Iran by acknowledging Iran’s right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. His remarks about negotiations with Iran without preconditions and considering Hamas as a legitimate organization that represents part of Palestinian society were music to the ears. He talked about Palestinian sufferings adding that security not only for Israelis but also for Palestinians, and categorically declared that all the settlements are illegal. Such gestures had given a new hope to the world. Arab countries had radiated an aura of optimism when Israel’s opposition leader Tzipi Livni warned that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s reluctance to declare support for a two-state solution may cause the United States to withdraw its support for Israel.

Vice President Joe Biden has drawn flak for his remarks that US cannot dictate to another sovereign nation (Israel) what they can and cannot do. Newspapers had construed it as giving a carte blanch to Israel to go ahead with its pernicious designs not only to continue perpetrating atrocities on Palestinians but also to take on Iran. The Obama administration has tried to dispel the impression that it is giving Israel the green light to attack Iran. President Obama, when he was in Moscow, issued a statement that Joe Biden had simply meant that such a course would have serious consequences. No sensible person would think of opening another theatre of war when the US is already mired in Iraq and Afghanistan. To get out of Iraq is of course a smart move, but Afghanistan’s terrain and the militancy there is much more difficult than Iraq, and there cannot be an honourable exit without Pakistan’s cooperation and support.

Many politicians, leaders of the public opinion and analysts were against Pakistan’s becoming the frontline state, and considered all the malaises and woes of Pakistan due to joining the Afghan war. That point besides, the fact remains that the coalition had achieved its objectives against the USSR though India was in the opposite camp. Even now India’s involvement is unnecessary because it has neither border with Afghanistan nor Indians can influence the extremists who have always been opposed to yahood-o-hanood. Secondly, India has its own axe to grind and would like to advance its own agenda and creating fissures among the people by taking sides with the members of the Northern Alliance and Pushtuns instead of helping to fight terrorists. Of course, the US leadership has to decide if its objective is to eradicate terrorism or to give overwhelming support to India in becoming the regional policeman, regional power and for that matter a world power.

The US administration should ponder over the fact that the US could bring some normalcy in Iraq only because a minority (Bathists) was ruling the majority (Shiites) for centuries. The US used the historical contradictions by further stoking the tension and playing one sect against another. And ultimately made separate deals with Sunnis and Shiites. In Afghanistan though President Hamid Karzai is a Pushtun but he is surrounded by members of minority communities (Tajiks and Hazaras) who are enjoying power whereas the majority (Pushtuns) have been denied the due share in the affairs of the country. And unless that arrangement is reversed, the US despite putting more boots on ground cannot control the situation in Afghanistan.

The US is paying a very high cost of war in Afghanistan. The US army psychologists have concluded that 30 % of US troops of 3rd deployments are mental wrecks. The war in Afghanistan that costs US taxpayers $3 trillion is now seen as an instrument to enrich the munitions manufacturers and the security top-notches.

It is true that the US has global interests but those interests can be protected by making friends and not foes. But Bush’s flawed policy of implanting democracy in Middle East, using military to topple unfriendly regimes and replace them with the friendly ones, proved a complete disaster and made many enemies in the world. Today, America is in deep trouble in the Middle East, in South Asia and elsewhere, and it has become difficult for military-industrial-corporate complex to fund the war theatres opened by former president George Bush. The latter was also responsible for entering into a dangerous US-India nuclear deal whereby India got the privileges of a nuclear-weapons state without responsibilities that go along with it. By doing so, America is not on moral high ground to pressurize Iran, North Korea or for that matter Pakistan to abandon expansion of nuclear capabilities.

The moot question remains unanswered whether any country has the right to invade and occupy the other’s land? What is the legal position of Palestinian lands - Gaza Strip and the West Bank when the UN charter does not allow such occupation? However, there is ambiguity and contradictions in the statements of members of Obama administration, which creates doubts about Obama’s capability to rein in neocons and warmongers. But Obama’s style of politics is different than his predecessor George W Bush who was arrogant, stubborn and in his own words that he was a war president, whereas President Obama is open to discussions and willing to talk to what the US had dubbed the ‘axis of evil’. Of course, it is an uphill task to deal with the complicated situation such as in Middle East and South Asia, but there is definitely difference in the way Bush handled the situation and the way Obama is trying to resolve the issues.

Email: mjamil1938@yahoo.com & mjamil1938@hotmail.com