Every awakening for freedom of humanity should be welcomed. Masses involvement in any change is better than one-man show. It was a long overdue awakening. Nothing is more powerful than national uprising. It has been proved by history whether it was in Vietnam or Afghanistan. The denial of national rights divided USSR, Yugoslavia and Pakistan.
If there is an organised party with educated cadre then the change is usually for betterment. But if it is a sudden uprising like Arab awakening it can go any way. It may lead to anarchy; civil war or usually it is stolen by vested interests.
Now in this backdrop one can analyse Arab world country by country. Egypt had somewhat organised political movements. But they lacked the cadre and discipline. The Tahrir square made a history but the masses have to go a long struggle to cut down military to its size and finish their role like Turkey.
Almost the same phenomenon was observed in Tunisia. The leadership was more mature the transition was comparatively smooth unlike other countries. In Libya it was diverted to a tribal war. The lack of an organised movement on the back, after a lot of blood shed it took a shape of intra tribal rivalry. Both sides are well armed and having no central powerful authority to disarm these tribal gangs.
In Yemen there was the same vacuum. No one knows the direction it will take up in the coming months. Its strategic importance is such that any change is a matter of concern to USA and Saudi Arabia. Saudi monarchs are dribbling in their trouser looking at the change at their doorsteps. The Saudi involvement in Bahrain was on sectarian basis. The majority of population is Shia having no say in the government affairs. The Iranian clergy involvement was on this pretext that majority should be heard. It was logically a correct stand.
But subsequently their involvement in Syria cannot be understood? The Shia minority, Alawites are ruling the majority Sunni with iron hands. The most barbaric regimen is the Syrian, in Middle East. The opposition is fragmented on sectarian lines. The Sunni are being supported by all Gulf States led by Saudi Arabia with the backing of the west and Shia ruling party has the support of Iran backed by Russia and China.
In this sectarian rivalry and the tussle of the west and Russia the blood of Syrians is being shed. Russian involvement has only one logic, that it is the last foothold for Russian in the Middle East.
The Hashemite kingdom of Jordan is mum to save its kingdom. Most of the non-Arab Muslim countries have taken the same posture. There is contradiction in the stance of Pakistan. They are at loggerhead with USA for intervention in its sovereignty. But on the other hand supported the American resolution in UNO, to intervene in Syrian affairs. This is the problem with Pakistan it has no principle to run it's affairs whether internal or external, on definite thought out principle but relies on mere impulses. Any external intervention be it killing, abduction or extradition of its citizen having the hidden support of the establishment is considered non interference, however on the other hand, any action without their tacit support is considered the violation of the sovereignty of the country. Basically they would have not uttered a word if the press was not so vocal and the credit extends to stubborn radicalisation in the country too. In my view the present strain relations are for internal public consumption. But it goes without saying that the USA administration must show maximum restraint in the case of Pakistan and Iran, being the world sole super power. The slight irresponsible response will radicalise the public opinion and the hawkish element in the establishment of Pakistan, on the other hand it will make peace in Afghanistan almost impossible.
We are in no illusion that USA administration cannot stand the pressure from Israel and its lobby in Washington but Israel must consider its repercussion in the whole area very seriously. To strike pre-emptively will cost them dearly.
I am personally of the opinion that we cannot be friends with Israel but we should not be its enemy too. Israel is a fact and not to accept fact is insanity, this animosity is one of the factors of Palestinian miseries. Though the arrogance and stubbornness of Israel still top the list. I think Palestinian leadership is also responsible to certain extent. To agree to Gaza strip was strategically wrong, as striking Palestinians were made easier. Now they have one target while prior to it they used to look for the target.
The international community and Israel demand is illogical to ask equal concessions from beleaguered authority and a nuclear power. The present awakening of Arab masses and subsequent anarchy has pushed back the Palestinians issue. Israel must realise before the time turns against it that a democratic nationalist secular Palestine is more in the interest of Israel than anyone else.
The same was the dilemma in Afghan revolution. The lack of political leadership, an organised and educated party cadre and well thought out strategy and now we are paying its price with our own blood. As our great leader Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan said that for successful revolution there are three pre-requisite. Firstly, a political organisation, secondly a committed and politically educated cadre, and thirdly a centre that is a learning school and organisational academy. Most of the movements those failed lacked these three factors. They are inter-twined.
Any dictatorial regimen by any name creates a vacuum. This vacuum sucks in rogue elements and the same is being used by mighty powers to exploit for their own interests.
In the present unipolar world it is of paramount importance to give a second reading to the charter of UNO. There are basic flaws in it. The very concept of veto is undemocratic. It makes the whole body irrelevant except the five bigs. It is tilted so much towards the powerful that it has assumed a shape of anti less fortunate nations. Even in very highly intellectual circles the counter devil concept is gathering momentum till the veto is abolished. It was a matter of surprise and shock for all peace and democracy loving people that the country of Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru is aspiring to be one of the veto powers. Instead of spearheading a movement to fight this concept and make UNO a house representing the whole humanity.
Ideally speaking no nation should have an army but the global village should have an army. If all the nations have no army there will be hardly any threat to any body. If there is some thing on a small scale that can be dealt by UNO. The present policy is to make UNO more impotent and less relevant. It is sub servant to USA and other four bigs. It is an international coffee house.
The theory of pre-emptive strike is an open state sponsored terrorism. Democratic values are tailored to suit the powerful. This animalistic approach has turned the world a hunting ground for the powerful. It might suit the mentality of Bush in the bushes not the humanity. The attitude of the bigs and super has devalued the values of the humanity. It is the duty of the internationally known intellectuals and some living legends to rise and break their silence. The dream of global village without equality of the nations is insanity and in fact imperialism of chip technology.
The preacher of democracy, peace and prosperity has turned the whole world in to a jungle where there is no place for law and justice. The whole humanity is so badly fractured that it may take centuries to put the pieces together.
Another thing that keeps me more disturbed is the question of responsible states and the rogues one. Who will define it? It was the self-proclaimed responsible state that bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki after a cease-fire while there was unelected government both in USA and UK but elected government in Japan. The pre-emptive strike against Iraq without the approval of UNO is another example of irresponsibly responsible nation.
Let us abandon double standards. There should one law one rule for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment