The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) clearly survived the trust vote in the Parliament. In spite of the allegations regarding buying of votes and abstentions, Prime Minister,Manmohan Singh claims this as a decisive victory. Constitutionally, of course, it is a victory, yet one doubts whether it is morally so. Certainly, not for the prime minister, who has a unblemished record of political morality. His claim of a decisive victory is also open to question. In fact, the votes show that the country is split almost in the middle. The reason is obvious. Even though theIndo-US Nuclear deal has been sold to the public as an energy security measure, it is in reality about a strategic alliance with the United States in its anti-China jihad. It is for this reason that the leftist parties in India had opposed the deal and had withdrawn support to the UPA government. Man Mohan Singh’s indecent haste to hand over George W Bush, a winner’s trophy in spite of his ignoble record, is certainly deplorable One of the main questions is whether it is morally justifiable for a minority government in its dying. days to take an irrevocable decision of such importance. Constitutionally, of course, by buying off disparate elements in the Parliament, the Man Mohan Singh government has a majority, to pass a legislation supporting the Indo-US alliance binding India to a commitment for which the country may not be ready. It is almost certain that India does not get a lot of strategic advantage from such an alliance, except the chance of standing next to an American president and getting a pat on the back, as the one Man Mohan Singh received from George W. Bush in his Tokyo meeting. This brings us to another and even more important moral question. Is it morally right for India to get closer at this time to the United States; a country that has committed an act of unprovoked aggression on an independent country on false pretences? Under the Geneva Convention, Nuremberg Charter, the UN Charter and the precedents set by the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, the American president, as the commander-in-chief is culpable of war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Had it been a lesser country, it would be America that would be clamouring for war crime trials as it did in the cases of Saddam Hussain or Slobodan Milosevic. Yet, in spite of the mounting evidence of contraventions of the Geneva Convention, no senior civilian or military official has been tried for war crimes in America. For short-term electoral reasons, the Democrats have avoided even impeaching George W. Bush. Unfortunately, we have been duped by the American propaganda regarding America’s democratic credentials and its being the defender of the rule of law. The reality is almost the opposite. From its very inception, the oligarchy of the United States ignored the treaty rights of the Native Americans, and indulged in acts, which, in present parlance, amounts to ethnic cleansing and genocide of the native population. It repeatedly violated the sovereignty of Mexico and other neighbouring countries, and subjected the Afro-Americans to inhuman treatment including lynching. Such occasions were advertised in the press and graced by parliamentarians, judges and senior government officials. Nearer our own time, the U.S. government and its intelligent services undermined democracies, arranged the assassination of the Third World leaders and underwritten atrocities by dictatorships the world over. In pogroms organised by the Central Intelligence Service (CIA) to overthrow Sukarno in Indonesia, at least half a million people were slaughtered, the list of communists to be liquidated was drawn by the American embassy in Jakarta. In the conduct of war, America has almost always violated international law. This happened in Vietnam, Nicaragua, the Gulf war, and Kosovo and is now happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. All in all, America respects international law when it suits its interests, when it does not, international codes of conduct are set aside indiscriminately. It applies international law selectively; Israel possesses nuclear weapons, yet the IAEA cannot raise it as an issue, while Iran is penalised for using its legitimate rights to develop nuclear technology for civilian uses. India, because of its willingness to play a part in the U.S. game plan against China, is condoned for having nuclear weapons. Even though the United States helped in creating the United Nations, it has more often undermined than helped it. With its unparalleled economic and military might it acts in the world as if it is above law. It has become much more intent on world domination since the demise of the Soviet Union. Not that the Soviet Union ever matched American power, but it did act as a restraint. Perhaps, Iraq would not have such an unfortunate fate if the Soviet Union was still alive. It is morally unsound to align with America at this juncture when it is turning to be what Noam Chomsky calls a ‘terrorist state.’ For a proper functioning of the international system, it is important that there is some restraint on American power. This can happen only if a countervailing power is born. At one time it was hoped that the European Union might develop into such a power. But it does not seem to be the case. Politically it is a disparate group of countries; a meaningful political and economic integration may take a long time to come. In the interim, there is no country which can act as a counterweight to the United States. In spite of the hype, China is economically, technologically and militarily too weak to match American power. So if we want to moderate American excesses, it is important that countries such as Brazil, China, India, Russia and South Africa co-ordinate their policies on international issues as they have often done in the trade talks and have had some successes. It does not need to be an anti-American alliance; on many international issues such as climate change and International Crime Court, there are many Americans who would like to see some constraints on American arbitrariness and to its return to the ‘Rule of Law’ much the same way as many Americans would like to see George W. Bush tried as a war criminal; many more support his impeachment. India can obtain its rightful place only when multi-polarity in the world is respected. India’s rightful place cannot come as a gift of the United States. The United States has rarely treated allies as equals; it does not need friends, it needs lap-dogs. It is sad that not unlike Tony Blair, Man Mohan Singh has opted for becoming one.
Delete It
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Dear Sir
I read your posts with much interest. Can the revival of the Non Aligned Movement be a solution?
Dear Sajan,
I am really sorry that I missed your comments. Forgive me for being so late in coming back to you. You may not even know whether I came back to you. In my view, you instincts are in the right place. I share your views on non-alignment. But this depends on your own world view, much of which depends on the subjective perception of the person concerned. In my world view,the reality of the world situation today is that we have only one superpower; both economically and militarily such a state never existed before in the world. Besides it does believe that it is exceptional with a mandate from God to change the world in its own image. With change of presidents rhetoric changes but not the substance. If I have a choice I would maintain a friendly distance from such a state and not become a 'poodle,' a term that was used for Tony Blair,the then the British Prime Minister. Given my preferences, I would also try to cut it to size, which is certainly not going to be easy. But some kind of solidarity between the emerging states it can be done, slowly over time. For instance, one could think of Brazil, China,India, Russia and South Africa coming together and cooperating in economic and political spheres. I could think of these countries starting consortia on the lines of say the "Air Bus' to produce their own civilian planes, their own satellites, and their own electric cars and similar other state of the art products. All these countries have developed quite a bit of technological prowess but may not be able to overtake the developed countries on their own; but getting together they can do so. In trade negotiations they have often stuck together and have obtained some advantages. By combining together for production--with their huge domestic markets they wiill have the advantage of scale-- of state of the art products they can overtake some of the developed countries in some fields. Japan did that in automobiles and electronics. Many American firms have been using the Chinese missiles for placing their satellites in the Space because now China can outbid American firms. Combined efforts of the newly emerging countries can do much more so. Americans realize this. They already know that much of the university and other research in America could not be continued without the students from China, India and other Asian countries. It is in this context that they do want to win over India to their side; an 'India Card' against China.If the two countries keep on considering each other potential enemies, there is an added advantage for America. There will be new arms race in Asia, providing a market for American defense industries. Like you my personal feeling is that the world situation demands that India continues with its policy of non-alignment. Unfortunately, the foreign policy establishment in India does not think so. I have no way of knowing it but by the precedence of other countries, I have a suspicion that some of the politicians, journalists and diplomats have been 'bought' by foreign establishments operating in India. My suspicion is that both the KGB (of course with much reduced resources) and the CIA are active in India. So I am afraid that Indian foreign policy will increasingly become subservient more to America than to Russia. My preference is to go along with you but ultimately we may be disappointed. Both major political parties are pro-American, the "Third Force" may not have enough clout in the new parliament.
Thanks and for give me once again for being so late. It was not intenbd, it was just an oversight.
Post a Comment