| |
 |
ARTICLE |
 |
The rising America-Russia tension
US-led attempts to contain Russia have been marked by inconsistencies
G Parthasarathy
The wreckage of the MH 17 that was shot down over Ukraine, escalating tension between Russia and Ukraine. AP/PTI |
In
the early hours of the morning of July 17, Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 17 with 298 people on board was shot down over Eastern Ukraine, now controlled by Russian separatists, engaged in a civil war against the Kiev Government. The Russian-speaking minority has been reinforced by their kinsmen from across the Russia-Ukraine border. They carry heavy firepower including tanks, armoured personnel carriers and surface-to-air missiles. The shooting down of MH 17 came alongside rebel missile attacks over the past four weeks, which have downed two military transport and three state-of–the-art Sukhoi attack aircraft, of the Ukrainian Air Force.The missile attack on MH 17 was evidently based on the mistaken assumption that it was a Ukrainian Air Force aircraft. There have been seven incidents of such inadvertent shooting down of civilian aircraft in the past. In recent times, South Korean Airlines Flight 007, with 277 passengers strayed into Soviet airspace. It was shot down by a missile fired from a Soviet MiG. After the usual rhetoric, Reagan and Gorbachev returned to business as usual. Thereafter, on July 3, 1988, Iran Air Flight 655 from Teheran to Dubai, with 290 passengers, mostly pilgrims headed for Mecca, was shot down over Iranian territorial waters, by two missiles fired from US Navy Missile
Cruiser, USS Vincennes. The US refused to accept responsibility for the action. It paid $61.8 million as compensation to the families of victims, following the ruling of an International Tribunal. What the US paid was less than 3per cent of what it got from Libya, for the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am 103. The Captain of the USS Vincennes was awarded “Combat Action Ribbons”, shortly thereafter! Washington’s displeasure, about Russian supply of surface-to-air missiles to the Russian resistance in Ukraine, is surprising. It was the US that started the practice of providing lethal weaponry to non-State actors. The CIA liberally provided lethal “Stinger” surface to air missiles to the anti-Soviet “Mujahideen” in Afghanistan, through the ISI. Three Indian Air Force Aircraft — a MiG 21, MiG 27 and Helicopter gunship — were shot down and a Canberra bomber damaged, during and just prior to the Kargil conflict. The IAF aircraft were fired on by Pakistan’s Northern Light Infantry, using, what were assessed to be, “Stinger” surface-to-air missiles. Given the US policy of strategic “containment” of Russia after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, it was inevitable that pushed to a corner by Americans, the Russians would inevitably reach a position of saying: “Thus far and no further”. The erratic nature of the policies of President Boris Yeltsin and his advisers, immediately after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, encouraged the US and its NATO allies to erode Russian influence in the Balkans, while undermining Russian credibility in Kosovo. Simultaneously, members of armed Chechen separatist groups were welcomed in Western Europe. Yeltsin’s incompetence in Chechnya and his inability to counter American efforts at “containment” just across Russia’s borders, contributed to his being eased out of office and replaced by Vladimir Putin. While the Russians tried to integrate former Soviet Republics economically and strategically, the US and its NATO allies held out lucrative offers for economic integration with the EU and membership of the NATO military alliance. Russia faced economic marginalisation and military encirclement. The Russians responded by developing economic partnerships with former Soviet Republics and the establishment of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The economic and security inroads by the EU and NATO have, however, significantly eroded traditional Russian influence in its immediate neighbourhood. The western moves, which the Russians regard as strategic encirclement, have resulted in former Warsaw Pact members — the Czech and Slovak Republics, Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania and Poland — joining NATO. In the Balkans, Croatia and Slovenia are now NATO members. Moreover, the former Soviet Baltic Republics, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have joined NATO. There are also moves to consider EU and NATO membership for Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Moldova and Georgia. Ukraine was ruled by Russian Tsars for about three centuries. It was regarded as part of the Russian sphere of influence. Its eastern region bordering Russia was increasingly populated by Russians. Ukraine’s Crimean region was transferred by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev from the Russian Federation to Ukraine in 1954, as a “gesture of goodwill,” marking the 300th anniversary of Ukraine being a part of the Tsarist Russia. Sevastopol in Crimea remains vital strategically to Russia, providing Russia access to the warm waters of the Black Sea. President Yanukovich of Ukraine and other Ukrainian leaders inevitably played off the Russians, who promised plentiful supplies of energy, against the EU, which promised prosperity. Yanukovich signed an agreement in 2010 extending the lease of Sevastopol till 2042. The quite evidently American-backed movement that resulted in the ouster of Yanukovich in Ukraine led to the takeover of Sevastopol and the Crimean region with a Russian majority population, by Russia. The US-led attempts to contain Russia have been marked by inconsistencies. The dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the independence of Kosovo were justified by the western powers on the lofty grounds of respect for “human rights”. But, today these same powers are raving and ranting against the ”separatists” of the Russian minority in Ukraine, who are seeking independence, or merger with Russia. There is little doubt that Russia today faces serious internal problems arising out of falling birth rates, alcoholism, drug addiction, declining life expectancy and corruption. But, it would be a historical error to underestimate Russian resilience in the face of adversity. Attempts to dominate and marginalise the Russian minority in Ukraine would be fiercely resisted and reinforced by support from across the Ukrainian-Russian border. What is needed is a realistic political solution involving a united, but federalised Ukraine. More importantly, attempts at “containment” of Russia, will have to be eschewed and the expansion of NATO across Russia’s borders ended. Given the imperatives of stability and energy security, responsible European countries like Germany and France would recognise this. Would the Americans do likewise?
 |
| |
|
MIDDLE |
|
Jungle tales with a difference
Mahesh Grover
 The
Asiatic Lion wrested control of the jungle from the African Lion after a hard battle and basked in glory like all victorious generals would, while life of other animals assumed normalcy. But soon despair and despondency over the state-of- affairs in the jungle set in, leading to unrest.Hearing commotion outside his den, the lion enquired of the fox what it was all about. The wily fox, always with an ear to the ground, knew the reason, but evaded a direct reply asking the king to check it out himself. The lion came out to find the animals restless and asked them, “What ails you?” Initially, there was silence as none dared to speak in the imposing presence of the king but then a meek voice from the anonymous crowd said, “King you promised us that happy days are around the corner but we do not see any. Life is as full of drudgery as it was earlier, food is scarce, animals are weak and are dying.” “Err, yes, I did promise you that but I never said that happy days are around the first corner. Wait till I find the right one and otherwise also it is too early. You see I am still honeymooning,” replied the king. “Honeymooning?” said the meek voice, now confused about the marital status of the king. With a throaty laugh, the king said, “Fools, I am honeymooning my success”, while the fox suppressed her chuckle at the exchange. “Now, go on, do not disturb me, I have to find that elusive corner behind which the promised days lurk,” said the king grimly and dismissed the crowd which grumbled that there was no difference between the days of the African Lion and those of the present one. The king turned to the fox and said, “I must get both my flock and act together, if I have to deliver, so take me to my flock.” The fox guided the king to where the flock of sheep had assembled. On seeing them, the king looked puzzled and said, “I see black sheep also in the flock of white. I thought only the white ones were with us and the black ones with the African Lion,” asked the king, searchingly of the fox. “Oh! all that Machiavellian talk was for general consumption. Remember so many black sheep had crossed over to our side, to don the white mantle”, said the fox. “Yes, but I see a similar mixture of black and white sheep on the side of the African Lion as well”, said the king a bit perplexed by now. “Ah! King the ultimate truth is that there is no difference between them and us. Two sides of the same coin. The flock and the stock is the same. Eventually, its a tough choice for the animals. I am reminded of Michael Jacksons’ popular number though its lyrics were rendered in a different context which go like this: “It’s Black, It’s white/It’s tough for you to get by/ It’s black, its white, whoo”. And they both clapped their hands and broke into an impromptu Tango while the animals outside, teary-eyed, sang another part of the same song: “I am tired of this stuff/I am tired of this business.”
|
| |
|
OPED
— pakistan |
|
Coping with a part-time leader
Zahid Hussain
"The most important quality in a leader is that of being acknowledged as such." — André Maurois
There’s no objection to Sharif's religious zeal. Should he not deal with issues of national security rather than seeking his own salvation? |
UNFORTUNATELY, our third-time prime minister does not fit this criterion. While our troops are engaged in the most critical battle against militants and hundreds and thousands of people have been displaced from their homes in North Waziristan and are facing severe hardship, our leader is off to Saudi Arabia for his annual spiritual retreat for 10 days. There cannot be any objection to his religious zeal. But as a leader he is also expected to focus on the job for which he has been elected. It is certainly no ordinary situation for a country in the midst of a conflict and looming humanitarian crisis. Being away from the country for so long at this critical time illustrates how low governance is on his priority list. Should our leader not be dealing with the vital issues of national security at home rather than seeking his own salvation?In any other country, a leader would have preferred to stay with one's own people in times of tribulation. But this is not the case with Nawaz Sharif who is best described as a part-time leader with minimal interest in running the affairs of the state. Not surprisingly, the approval rating for his party has plummeted in a short period. Surely, it is hard for any incumbent to maintain the same level of popular appeal that brings one to power. Yet the plunge in Nawaz Sharif's approval ratings within the first year of his third term in office is astonishing even by Pakistani standards, if opinion polls are to be trusted. Trailing far behind the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, the party has now fallen behind even the PPP in public approval ratings. According to the latest Herald/SDPI opinion poll, only 17per cent of respondents said they would vote for the PML-N if elections were held today compared to 33 per cent for the PTI and 19 per cent for the PPP which was routed in the last election. Such a low popular standing does not come as a surprise given Sharif's dismal performance and style of governance. His is more of a family limited company than a functional institutional democracy. All power is concentrated in the hands of a few members of the family. And now the “gifted” daughter is being groomed as heir apparent. There is no party organisation and all decisions are made by Sharif alone. The exclusion of others has created serious misgivings among senior party members. For once, Asif Ali Zardari was right when he said the people had voted for Sharif to be prime minister, not a monarch. And that monarchy is run from Lahore where Sharif mostly stays when not out of the country. The rest of the country does not seem to exist for him. A frequently asked question is how different is the current Sharif government from the prime minister's previous ones. The answer is simple: It is far worse. Sharif is more indecisive and as one political leader said “he has no fire in the belly”. Yet there is no deficit of hubris of power. The Model Town carnage and police brutality is the hallmark of Sharif's rule. The panicky reaction of the administration on the arrival of Tahirul Qadri is a manifestation of the increasing political alienation of the Sharif administration. It has been a disappointing first year in power. There have been fewer examples of such a lacklustre leadership devoid of any foresight. His disdain for Parliament is demonstrated by his rare appearances in the house in the past 14 months. Not surprisingly, Parliament has been reduced to a dormant forum with little debate on substantive policy issues. Sharif returned to power with a promise to take Pakistan to the path of economic revival and improved governance. But his vision of progress has been limited to metro buses and motorways. Certainly, his government has achieved short-term economic stability, but in the absence of fundamental structural reforms the long-term scenario does not look so encouraging. The health of the economy is interpreted through the narrow prism of foreign exchange reserves and appreciation in the value of the rupee. It is scandalous the way the finance ministry apparently manipulated the economic growth rate to portray a positive picture of the economy. The distortion was exposed when the real figure was provided to the IMF. A major reason for the erosion in the approval rating of the PML-N is the utter failure of the government to deal with the power crisis. There has not been any respite from load-shedding despite the government's claim of substantial increase in power generation. The unresolved problem of circular debt is said to be the major reason for the widening shortfall in power supply. The government has done little to improve the working of the distribution companies or to collect outstanding bills. After much dithering, Sharif has finally given the go-ahead for the military operation in North Waziristan. But he is still not willing to take complete ownership of the critical campaign. Even the responsibility for displaced persons has been handed over to the military. What is most alarming is the government's decision to call in the army to guard important public installations in major cities. There is also a plan to give wider power to the armed forces under Section 245 of the Constitution. It is tantamount to a complete abdication of the civilian government's responsibility. Getting the army involved in maintaining law and order in the cities can mean a gradual military takeover. It is almost a repeat of 1998 when the Sharif government used the troops for everything starting with electricity meter readings. It is apparent that no lessons have been learnt from the past. A part-time leadership cannot deal with the grave situation confronted by the country. The writer is an author and journalist.
By arrangement with the Dawn
|
| |
Women keeping watch on other women
Rafia Zakaria
Women of the Al Khansaa Brigade are nowhere to be found when other women are being persecuted. |
THE Syrian city of Raqqa was the capital of the Abbasid caliphate under the reign of the Harun Al Rashid. In the past several months, the city, located to the east of the historic Syrian city of Aleppo, has been taken over by Isis, the Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham — recently renamed Islamic State. Under the reign of the self-declared “caliph”, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, the place has now become the prototype of what the group imagines will be a transnational Islamic state spread across the region.Like the Taliban before it, Isis was quick to realise that one of the easiest ways to make a political statement in war-torn lands is to crack down on the women in a region — as did the Afghan Taliban when they marched into Kabul. A public sphere devoid of women is crucial to their reimagining of an authentic Islamic state. In oppressing women, the denizens of the Islamic State have decided to go farther than the Taliban.
Al Khansaa Brigade
Soon after the Isis took control of Raqqa, it announced the creation of the Al
Khansaa. It was created to raise “an awareness of religion among women and punish women who do not abide by the law.”
Those familiar with colonial history will recognise that the task of empowering a few members of an oppressed group in order to have them carry out the policies
of the new invaders was a trademark in those times.
The women of the Al Khansaa brigade fulfil a particularly colonial function: Harassing, detaining, judging and oppressing their sisters to please the conquering men of Isis
The strategy of using women to discipline other women is not a new one. It has been previously used by Saudi Arabia and Iran.
|
Soon after the Isis took control of Raqqa, it announced the creation of Al Khansaa Brigade. According to a spokesman, the Brigade was created to “raise awareness of our religion among women and to punish women who do not abide by the law”. There are only women in Al Khansaa Brigade, and to prevent the “mixture of men and women,” they have been provided their “own facilities”. Like the male members of Isis, the women of Al Khansaa Brigade are all armed. One of their first arrests was of a woman called Zainab. Her crime was walking unescorted through the streets of Raqqa after the Isis takeover. Suddenly, a car stopped next to her and a swarm of armed women from Al Khansaa Brigade swarmed round her, yelling and shouting insults. Before long, the teenaged Zainab had been arrested. She was taken to an undisclosed location and locked in a room without being told why. Finally, one of the members of the Brigade came towards her. At gunpoint, she tested Zainab's knowledge of prayers, fasting and the hijab. She was told that she had been arrested because she had been walking unescorted in the streets — something that was now a crime in Raqqa. Zainab was eventually released, but not without the dire warning that she would suffer even worse punishment in the future. In the days since the Brigade was created, its members have been busy patrolling the streets, harassing women, raiding schools and arresting female students and detaining them for questioning. The message to all women is clear: any diversion from the Isis interpretation of Islamic law will have dire consequences. Reportedly, few women can now be seen on the streets of Raqqa. This strategy of using women to discipline other women is not a new one; it has been previously employed by Saudi Arabia and Iran, both of which have various brigades consisting of all-female morality police members. In a state where women are largely powerless, giving some of them a modicum of power over others creates dissension within their ranks and eliminates opportunities for protest. Simply put, women's anger is directed not towards the patriarchal oppression imposed by men (in this case via the use of religious distortions) but towards other women who have just a little more power than themselves. In this way, women stand divided, separated in the case of the Isis-controlled Raqqa by divisions created by men. The chosen women deemed pious by the ever- superior judgement of men are recruited into Al Khansaa Brigade. All other women are automatically demoted, left open to the judgments of the ones chosen by men, to policewomen. In the days since Isis has come to the fore, much has been said about its project of creating a re-envisioned Islamic caliphate and its hodgepodge resurrection of a pre-colonial Muslim kingdom. As several analysts and Isis fighters (and those of their ilk) have pointed out, the attempt is to create a world untouched by Western influence, which by definition would be more authentic, even utopian. For all its ire towards the colonial era, however, the Isis tactic of using women to watch women borrows directly from it. As those familiar with colonial history will recognise, the task of empowering a few members of an oppressed group in order to have them carry out the policies of new invaders was a trademark of those times. The women of Al Khansaa Brigade hence fulfil a particularly colonial function: harassing, detaining, judging and oppressing their sisters to please the conquering men of Isis. Like the colonists of old, the power that Isis has actually invested in the female Al Khansaa Brigade is vacuous and largely superficial. While the women are left to squabble over whether walking around unescorted is okay and the lengths of permissible head coverings, the men continue to perpetuate oppression on women. They cannot be questioned by Al Khansaa Brigade. Recently, Al Jazeera reported that a woman had been stoned to death by Isis in Raqqa. While the male spokespersons asserted than an “Islamic trial” had taken place, there was no evidence that any such thing had happened. In the lone mobile phone picture of the event, no women from Al Khansaa Brigade were in sight. When women are being persecuted, then, Al Khansaa Brigade is nowhere to be found. Its parameters and its Islamic duty to justice and fairness do not extend to that realm. Eliminating women from the public sphere is an easy way to make a statement; streets devoid of one-half of the population are a testament to the power of an invading extremist group. At the centre of the strategy of using women to oppress other women is the former's willingness to be the pliant political instruments of men. By arrangement with the Dawn
The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy
|
