Editorial
Bush’s hard-fisted diplomacy
It is the rule with every American president elected to a second term to spend his last four years in the White House dealing with matters of diplomacy. On a more forthright level, US presidents, keen not to be seen as lame ducks in their second term as both Republicans and Democrats evaluate the possibilities or otherwise of the men who would want to succeed them, have regularly sought to portray themselves as statesmen. Few have succeeded and most have made little or no mark at all in the human consciousness. Be that as it may, President George W. Bush has demonstrated in his latest State of the Union address the characteristics which his earlier two-term predecessors have shown, which is to emphasis America’s role in the world. But where this president differs from those earlier ones is in his determination to see the world in terms of black and white. Mr. Bush and the people around him have had little time in the last four years to consider anything of the greyish kind in their politics. It now appears that the habit or inclination has not changed. For Bush supporters in America, that may be a good instance of strong leadership. For the outside world, it is a matter of serious worry.
The US President has singled out Iran and Syria in his speech as sponsors of terrorism. He has thus made it clear that the war on terror he inaugurated in the aftermath of 11 September 2001 will go on as long as he does not get his way. That attitude is fraught with huge risks, for it once more raises the spectre of a world where American soldiers, in company with their allies, will take upon themselves the job of correcting what they think is wrong. A blunt way of putting that is simply to say that despite the terrible mess in Iraq, the US administration is not yet in reality mode. It has been going about stirring up sentiments over Iran in the same way it did before the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There can hardly be any question that Tehran will not survive a military assault by the Americans if it comes. But the damage that such an assault might do to the future of the world is incalculable. It is from such a perspective that some America-watchers suggest that the United States may not choose to attack Iran after all. So who will? For an answer, read the sinister suggestion emanating from that most parochial of American vice presidents in modern times. Dick Cheney has had little embarrassment in suggesting that the Israelis might strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities. The truth is elsewhere, which is that Tel Aviv will not act but by Washington’s leave. And if it does act, the entire prospect of peace in the Middle East, not just in Palestine, will go up in smoke. There is then the matter of Syria. One quite agrees that Damascus ought to change its outlook where its support for extremist Islamist forces is concerned. Its record in keeping northern Lebanon under its control has been appalling. Mr. Bush could do a good job of engaging President Bashar Assad in diplomacy instead of weighing the chances of how to strike him and his country down by an exercise of military force.
The world is George Bush’s to build, or destroy, in the next four years. His goal of bringing democracy to countries he is keen on is appreciable. But his record in Iraq does not inspire much faith in his methods. He remains under suspicion nearly everywhere around the globe.
Mukesh goes home
The Friday issue of New Age highlighted the tale of a young Indian brought over to Bangladesh and then left stranded by his supposed benefactor. The fourteen year-old boy named Mukesh has now, thanks to the efforts of a local NGO here, gone back home to Delhi. We are all relieved that Aparajeyo Bangladesh and the Indian High Commission (which made arrangements for the boy to be given a passport) have made it possible for Mukesh to return home instead of getting lost for ever from his family.
The question which now assails everyone is how the young Bangladeshi man Kamal, who has been missing, managed to bring Mukesh to Bangladesh. The Indian boy has told the NGO that Kamal paid some money to the Indian Border Security Force before they made their way into this country. Was the money paid only to the BSF? And are we supposed to think that once Kamal and Mukesh crossed over into Bangladesh, they faced no more hurdles? The mystery is deep. But whatever may have happened at the border, it is clear that Kamal may have found it easy to deal with security people on both sides of it, one reason being that his might have been a known face to them. It was therefore with ease that the young Bangladeshi and the Indian boy made their way to Dhaka, where Kamal simply abandoned Mukesh. He made sure, though, that he was in possession of Mukesh’s money first. It was Mukesh’s sheer good fortune that a woman in Motijheel took pity on him and got in touch with the police.
The question which one must now deal with is whether the Indian boy was an intended victim of human trafficking. Kamal, if Mukesh is to be believed, sought shelter for a few days from Mukesh’s father in India. That is a sign that the Bangladeshi may not earlier have been known to the Indian family residing in Delhi. And yet the family agreed to let their son travel with a relative stranger to Bangladesh. The mystery deepens. It becomes even more telling when there remains no trace of Kamal. Should that be the end of the story, for now, until a similar story crops up again somewhere?
SUNDAY COLUMN
Through a glass, darkly
Globalization should be welcome as long as it serves the interests of America, the Administration is bluntly told. This is a rank reactionary, parochial and selfish point of view. Its premise is political hegemony as the product of economic power and the conclusion is, America can let upstarts grow powerful economically, only at its own peril. The dire consequences that follow from the forecast about the future will reinforce the argument to be economically and politically more aggressive by America, writes Hasnat Abdul Hye
By now there is almost a surfeit of literature on the subject of globalization. From erudite academics to know-all journalists, books on globalization are pouring in the market endlessly. There have been few subjects in recent memory that have attracted so much attention from such a diverse group for such a long time. Though it is not a new fangled idea any more, the fascination with it and its various ramifications remain unabated.
Those who have written books on globalization are either for or against it, with some falling in between and having mixed feelings. Though no consensus has yet bear reached either on the merits or demerits of the process that has been set in motion, that it has become a fact to be reckoned with has been recognized.
The protagonists have been enthusiastic about the positive aspects of globalization. Its role in expanding global trade and through it, growth of global wealth, is explicated with facts and figures. Deregulation, privatization and liberalization of trade, allowing free movement of goods, capital and services are held out as the key to accelerating the process. The less developed countries may not benefit much in the beginning but before long they too, are destined to catch up with developed countries, it is pointed out.
The sceptics are not so sure about the beneficial impact of globalization. Its egregious effect on the distribution of global prosperity is pointed out as is the prospect of growing inequality within a country. The double standard followed by developed countries in their trading regime in explained on the major factor contributing to the deprivation of developing countries from the benefits of globalization. Besides, exploitation by multinationals has become the staple of anti-globalizers’ relentless campaign.
By present reckoning the polemics used by the rival and competing comps is likely to get intensified in future. Meanwhile, the subject has been looked at and analysed from a new prospective. It is a narrow one and is pre-occupied with the interests of a single country. The Bush Administration constituted a new body, the National Intelligence Council and gave it among other tasks, the assignment to assess the impact of globalization in world affairs. The effects were not to be confined to economics only and the matter had to be seen from the viewpoint of American national interests, particularly security. No other study or writing had this focus. The scope of the study was broad in so far as it embraced more than one effect of globalization. But it was narrow because the issues had to be seem in the light of interests of a single country. The national security aspect of globalization was given emphasis over all other consideration. The National Intelligence Council was to live up to its designation as an intelligence gathering body and ferret out secrets of not past events but of possible scenarios in the near future.
The National Intelligence Council has prepared a report under the caption ‘Mapping the Future’ and submitted it to the Bush Administration. Excerpts from the report have been published in newspapers. According to the forecast of the Council, marked economic progress will take place in the world by 2020 but all countries will not progress at the same rate. But what is of strategic interest and a matter of trepidation to America is that a few countries in Asia will become its economic rivals. Countries which will fail to benefit from globalization will nurse grievances which in turn is likely to be exploited by extremists. In the view of the National Council by 2020 many terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda will emerge across the globe. These terrorist groups will join hands with regional secessionist groups that are waging low level and simmering wars at present or may do so in future.
Considering the uncertainty about the directions in which globalization may proceed, the Council has prepared four scenarios. The first of this has been called “Davos World” which has positive aspects and plays a conducive role in the world economy. Opposite to this is the scenario named by the Council as the ‘Cycle of Fear’. In this case the fear of conflict and terrorism will spread in such a way that large scale use of military force will be necessary to maintain security. The environment of fear and suspicion created by this development has been described as ‘Orwellian’. The Council has thought of a third scenario and named it “New caliphate” where a religion-based movement will challenge the values of the west. Under the name ‘Pax Americana”, the Council has outlined a scenario where America will give leadership to build a new world order to survive the emerging changes in world politics. The Council has pointed out the huge cost involved in this.
In economic matters the Council has highlighted the fact that China and India may shape the process of globalization in the coming 15 years. It has spelt out the implications of this development in respect of influence over world economy. The emergence of these two economic powers has been compared with the unification of Germany in the nineteenth century and the rise of America as a global power in the twentieth century. According to the Council, China and India’s growing economic power will change the seo-political power in the world and its consequence will be as profound as the global changes during the past two centuries. Both China and India will give leadership in the technology arena in future. By 2020 the head offices of global corporations will be located in Asia and they will be less dependent on western economies. They will have their operation mostly in China, Brazil and India.
It is obvious that the Council was primarily concerned with the economic supremacy of America and its national security. That a new international economic order led by new economic ‘power houses’ like China and India, may displace the pre-eminence of America has been seen as a danger and not as a prospect to be welcomed. The policy implications for this scenario have not been delineated but are not difficult to conclude. America and Europe should band together to face the emerging challenge from Asia. This will require closer economic relationship and co-operation between America and Europe, it is implied. The Council does not share the widely held view that the major beneficiaries of globalization will be the developed countries like America because, of the headstart they have. Rather, it indirectly cautions America against opening its market to countries like China and India. Its forecast about the impact of globalization calls for more protection and not more opening up of the American market.
By arguing that some countries will fail to benefit from globalization and thus become breading ground of extremists and terrorists, the Council seems to farther ask for rethinking globalization as it is unfolding now. Globalization should be welcome as long as it serves the interests of America, the Administration is bluntly told. This is a rank reactionary, parochial and selfish point of view. Its premise is political hegemony as the product of economic power and the conclusion is, America can let upstarts grow powerful economically, only at its own peril. The dire consequences that follow from the forecast about the future will reinforce the argument to be economically and politically more aggressive by America.
By drumming up fear about the spread of extremism and the emergence of more terrorist groups like Al Queda, the Council has given adequate justification for the continuance of the “war on terrorism’, even at the cost of violating sovereignty of nations and human rights of individuals. Reference made about the need for large scale military operation is in fact suggestion that pre-emptive and unilateral military attacks would be justified. By referring to the burden of cost to make the world safe from terrorism, discreet overture has been made for help and co-operation from Europe.
The most divisive prediction by the council has been made under the ‘New Caliphate’ scenario, where a religions-based movement has been envisaged challenging western values. It does not require much imagination to realise that the religion in question is Islam. If there is any doubt about that the epithet ‘New Caliphate’ dispels it almost graphically. It is the “clash of civilization” revisited in propaganda terms. Not that it was not pressed into service before. The neo-cons and the hawks in American Enterprise have already taken over foreign policy and security strategy making with ‘clash of cirelization’ as the underpin. The Council has propagated the idea and recycled it more directly and openly in its report. Based on this scenario, America can only be expected to be more biased against Muslims and engage in forms of hostility towards regimes in the Muslim world that are not its stooges. If that really comes about the world in the near future, is going to be very unstable place, adversely affecting almost every one, in some way or other. From this point of view the Council has not promoted the interests of the world community at all. If its implicit recommendations are acted on, it may turn out that even American long term interests have been jeopardised.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
