Nikolay Kudashev, Russian Ambassador to India, says that the history of World War I teaches us many universal lessons, which are still relevant
As the world marks the 105th anniversary of World War I (1914) and remembers the beginning of the war, we recall how it led to an implosion of great empires — Russian, German, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian — devastated the European continent, drastically reshaped the erstwhile global order and ushered in a period of instability, which finally resulted in the outbreak of the second World War in 1939.
Russia, during the time, was not prepared to enter the war. Nevertheless, when Saint Petersburg’s sincere diplomatic efforts to prevent the conflict failed, Russia completely carried out its commitments to the allies — Serbia, France and Great Britain.
On August 1, 1914, Germany had declared war on Russia. Within the next few days, France and Great Britain were drawn into the warfare. In no time, the Reichswehr was beating against the gates of Paris. St Petersburg took up the ally’s call to attack the opponents immediately and thus began the fateful offensive in Prussia. The subsequent crush of the advancing army, led by General Samsonov, was the price that Russia had paid for saving the French capital — the sacrifice that Supreme Allied Commander, Ferdinand Foch himself had admitted.
That was indeed the first but not the last instance when Russia had come to the allies’ rescue. In 1916, after suffering a number of setbacks, it launched a large-scale assault, led by General Aleksei Brusilov, supporting French efforts. Soon Russia had reacted to a request from the French for help by sending in 45,000 troops to the Western front, where they stood against the Germans alongside with the Indian Cavalry Corps.
Overall, the Russian entry into the war prevented the early rout of the Western allies, thus forcing Germany and Austro-Hungary into a warfare they were doomed to loose.
In 1914, German, Austro-Hungarian and Turkish armies lost more than 10 lakh troops at the Russian front while lost 9.8 lakh at the Western and Serbian fronts. In the course of the war, the Germans and the Austrians deployed almost half of their troops against Russia.
After the break out of hostilities, St Petersburg concentrated on strengthening the bonds within the Entente, isolating the Triple Alliance, searched for new allies, worked on future settlements, but was unable to reap any of the benefits. A war period of two and a half years led to an overstrain of Russia’s economy, breakdown of its army, a series of political turmoils, collapse of its monarchy, the 1917 October Revolution and the civil war.
The history of the World War I teaches many universal lessons, which are relevant even today. One of the most important is that of inadmissibility of imposing one’s own sense of exceptionalism upon others with blind use of force. It reminds us of tragic consequences of excessive ambitions of political leaders as well as of importance to firmly uphold the hard-won principles of sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their internal affairs and collective methods for settling crises by political and diplomatic means.
(The writer is a senior journalist)
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
Though the present US-Pak bonhomie is Afghan-specific, India will have to be watchful and tread its path carefully in case Khan succeeds to placate the Taliban
Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s recently concluded three-day visit to the US and his one-on-one meeting with US President Donald Trump have evoked mixed reactions in India not only due to the latter’s controversial statement but also due to a lukewarm concern displayed by American authorities with regard to terrorism. Relations between Pakistan and the US have been strained ever since the Trump Administration assumed power due to Islamabad’s support to the global jihadi terrorist organisations and its involvement in cross-border terrorism in India and Afghanistan. Though Pakistan’s involvement in cross-border terror in Iran is also well established, the US does not show much concern due to its strategic concerns in the Gulf region.
Pakistan’s continued support to the Taliban and the Haqqani network operating in Afghanistan irked the new US Administration, which put it on notice, threatening to suspend all aid, including the package to its Army. Islamabad failed to read the US’ intent. In the past, it got away playing the nuclear card. The Western world, particularly the US, is scared of the nuclear arsenal falling in the hands of jihadi terrorists operating from Pakistan’s soil and succumbed to its black mail, dishing out doles to it. Trump, however, is different.
“The US has foolishly given Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid over the last 15 years and they have given us nothing but lies and deceit, thinking of our leaders are fools. They give safe havens to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!” — this is what Trump tweeted on the first day of 2018. Pakistan went to the extent of blaming Trump for “flinging accusations at Pakistan,” as he was disappointed at the “US’ defeat in Afghanistan.” Trump responded by blocking American aid of approximately $3 billion that also included the $300 million for the Pakistani Army. The Army-to-Army contact between the two nations was suspended. It was a big setback for Pakistan, which was already going through an economic crisis. Islamabad did try to put up a brave front initially but its dwindling economy, India’s diplomatic offensive in exposing Pakistan, the firm stand of the US Administration and the strictness of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) compelled the Imran Khan Government to take stern measures against the terror industry. Whether these measures are a “show window” to win the trust of Trump and the US authorities (a prelude to Khan’s visit to the US) or is there a sense of seriousness or permanency, only time will tell.
Meanwhile, the US has begun preparations for the next presidential election and Trump has also thrown his hat in the race. He is desperate to have one major diplomatic victory about which he can boast to the American people. His initiative in the Korean Peninsula is not making much headway. The strained relations with Iran are harming him more than helping him boost his image. His high-handed tactics of dealing with other countries have got him more enemies than allies. Both China and Russia also have tense relations with America. Although India is likely to be granted the status of the most-favoured non-NATO ally and is already designated with special STA-1 status, the relationship between the two countries is blowing hot and cold. Many in India perceive the US as a fickle ally. In a nutshell, Trump has more negatives to his credit than positives as far as foreign and strategic relations are concerned. He is desperate to win the Afghan tangle, which is not possible without placating the Taliban. The US also knows that only Pakistan can exert the desired influence on the Taliban. This forms the background of Khan’s visit to Pakistan as far as American perspective is concerned and unblocking the US aid.
Let’s first discuss Afghanistan. India has emerged as a major soft power in Kabul and has a big stake in whatever final settlement takes place. The Taliban has been recognised as the key impediment to the end of conflict in Afghanistan. Earlier, India was elbowed out of the direct negotiations with the Taliban, as claimed by a section of the media. To my mind, it is a deliberate decision by the Government to stay away from direct negotiations with the terror group due to adverse ramifications back home. India, however, cannot be ignored. Sooner than later, we will be involved in the final settlement. India remains steadfast on its traditional position of supporting only an “Afghan-led, Afghan owned and Afghan controlled” process, which includes the duly elected Government in Kabul.
With Pakistan forming a key partner in Trump’s South Asia strategy for achieving a political settlement in Afghanistan; defeating Al Qaeda and IS-Khorasan; providing logistical access for US forces and enhancing regional stability, it certainly has gained an upper hand. That is why Pakistan was included for the first time in the trilateral consultations with Russia, China and the US on the Afghanistan peace process held in Beijing in July.
The entire focus of the US was concentrated on Afghanistan during Khan’s visit, which included the Pakistan Army Chief and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief in the entourage. While Khan has agreed to work with Trump to prod the Taliban to strike a peace deal with the aim of extricating the US Army from its longest war, the latter has dangled the offer of unblocking $3 billion aid to Pakistan if Khan succeeds. Khan said, “I want to assure President Trump, Pakistan will do everything within its power to facilitate the Afghan peace process. The world owes it to the long-suffering Afghan people to bring about peace after four decades of conflict.”
There is no doubt that the US is desperate to exit from Afghanistan but is the negotiation with the Taliban the best solution? The terror organisation has not been reformed and its five-year brutal rule is still fresh in the mind of the Afghans. It certainly suits Pakistan because this will help it achieve its aim of achieving strategic depth and the use Afghan territory to promote terrorism. It will also end the hope of a democratic Afghanistan, disappointing millions who are holding out still for a brighter future. India must, therefore, press for its involvement in the peace talks and ensure that the Taliban does not elbow out the elected Afghan Government. Trump’s desperation can be gauged from this statement, “I could win that war within a week, and I don’t want to kill 10 million people. Afghanistan could be wiped off the face of the earth. I don’t want to go that route.”
India has lot at stake because Afghanistan holds significant economic, security and strategic implications for it. We cannot be a mute spectator and have to ensure that democracy survives in Afghanistan. As far as counter-terrorism is concerned, not much time was devoted to the same possibly to avoid public embarrassment to the visiting premier, whose services are badly needed by the US in view of its leverage over the Taliban, thanks to the safe havens it provides to the group’s leadership. But as admitted by Khan himself, with more than 40 terror groups existing in Pakistan, the situation is very fragile. Any terror attack in Afghanistan or India with mass causalities with proven links to Pakistan will reverse the new-found relationship between the US and Pakistan. The latter will have to tread the path very carefully.
Khan was successful in raising the Kashmir issue during the one-on-one meeting with President Trump. It was a spin-doctored question asked by a correspondent to prevent difficult questions on Pakistan’s involvement in terrorism, which would have caused a lot of embarrassment to Pakistan. The question successfully diverted the topic to Kashmir, when Khan lost no time in seeking Trump’s mediation and assistance in resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue. India has made its stand very clear by stating that talks and terror cannot be held together.
Trump surprised everyone with his signature trademark off-the-cuff remark. He has developed a habit of speaking or tweeting without preparation or proper briefing. His remark stoked a controversy, to which New Delhi reacted promptly and set the record straight. Fearing a strain in Indo-US relations, a number of American bureaucrats and leaders also jumped in to save the situation from worsening. But Trump is Trump and his remark should be seen in the light of his desperation for an early Afghan exit.
But Khan has succeeded to once again to internationalise Kashmir after numerous failed attempts by past Governments. India has to be careful and thwart the ISI’s design to portray home-grown terror groups in India by promoting the proxies of IS like ISJK, Al Qaeda like Ansar Ghazwa-ul-Hind, Hizbul Mujahideen and other IS-affiliate/inspired terror outfits. The ISI will certainly attempt to influence Left-wing extremism as has been exposed by the Pune Police disclosing links between urban Naxals and HM.
Khan’s attempt at reviving bilateral trade, as was evident from the large number of businessmen and traders that formed his entourage and unblock the US aid, has failed for the time being and is in no way going to help him to come out of the current economic mess. It may force him to persist with various counter-terrorism mechanisms put in place, including the arrest of Hafiz Saeed. More arrests are likely provided the Army and ISI permit. The imminent danger of being placed in the blacklist by the FATF may tie the hands of the ISI and Army. So the axe is likely to fall more on Afghan-specific terror groups like the Taliban and the Haqqani network.
The visit has been significant as far as bilateral security cooperation and military-to-military relations are concerned. There is a bright chance of resuming suspended military training programmes for Pakistan. At one point during President Trump’s meeting with Khan, the former also hinted at resumption of the security assistance for Pakistan depending on what both countries achieve concerning Afghanistan. The major plus point was the personal rapport established between the two. There is a great likelihood of a direct tele-line between the two leaders to further cement their bonhomie and smoothen any bureaucratic hiccups that may erupt. Islamabad would like to use such an opportunity to sort out other issues in the bilateral realm.
Will there be a change in the Indo-Pacific strategy of the US? Will Pakistan succeed in elbowing out India from the US equation in the region? Indian diplomats will have to work hard to ward off any such possibility. Though the present bonhomie between the two is Afghan-specific, what shape it takes in the future in case Khan succeeds to placate the Taliban, will have to be watched carefully.
(The writer is a Jammu-based political commentator, columnist, security and strategic analyst)
Writer: Anil Gupta
Courtesy: The Pioneer
If history is anything to go by, it is premature for either the US to trust the Pakistanis or vice versa. Both nations have been known to ultimately succumb to their basic instincts. Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has been walking the tightrope of the genealogical and evolutionary compulsions that characterise his nation. His jazba (passion) of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) had stormed the elections in 2018 and promised an idyll that is historically, Constitutionally and practically undeliverable – a “Riyasat-e-Madina”, where all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law with guaranteed full fundamental rights.
Acknowledging the enormity of his promise and reset, he instinctively suggested reconstructing the edifice of Pakistan and rechristened it as “Naya Pakistan.” The inheritance of an economy in slide with rising debts, falling currency, inflation and depleted coffers had him scurrying to the Arab capitals, Beijing and even to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This to impress upon them an economically-prudent, austere and reformist agenda that would no longer be profligate or reckless with the sanctioned “aid.”
This entailed the toning down of his anti-IMF tirade that he had invoked during the pre-election campaigning, as indeed, personally chauffeuring the all-important Princelings from the rival camps of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. While money has started trickling in bits, it has extracted a severe price from the common citizenry as they reel under spiralling price rises and shortages.
The onerous task of re-setting to “Naya Pakistan” essentially implies the reneging of various Pakistani positions. The opening act of the tenure was lavish in promising such change, including the famous “If India takes one step, Pakistan will take two.” The optics and soundbites emanating from the prime ministerial house were in conformity with the naya way of things and soon the usual ostentatiousness was frowned upon and the all-powerful razzmatazz was supposedly cut.
The world at large waited with bated breath to figure out if it was yet another exercise in political posturing or if Pakistan had indeed evolved to the portents of “Naya Pakistan.” But the cracks showed up almost immediately as Imran Khan succumbed to the nation’s ingrained bigotry and dropped the economist, Atif Mian, from the economic advisory, apparently on account of his belonging to the minority and the persecuted Ahmediya faith.
From the Indian perspective, Imran Khan continued making naïve statements against terrorism while the Pakistani incorrigibility continued in Afghanistan. Then the Pulwama episode happened. The trust deficit between Pakistan and all its irate neighbours (India, Afghanistan and Iran) widened. A certain disillusionment against the built-up hype of “Naya Pakistan” started afresh.
The US was already breathing down Pakistan’s neck for its duplicity and US President Donald Trump famously tweeted that Pakistan does not “do a damn thing” in return for the billions of dollars in American “aid.” Imran Khan retaliated and tweeted back: “No Pakistani was involved in 9/11 but it decided to participate in the US’ war on terror” and added, “Pakistan suffered 75,000 casualties in this war and over $123 billion was lost to the economy.” US aid “was a minuscule $20 billion.” The free-for-all between Pakistan and the US ensured that Islamabad swung even more sharply towards the willing arms of Beijing and almost started behaving like a beholden and vassal state of China.
Providentially, for Imran Khan and Pakistan, the whimsical Trump, who had ranted against the Pakistani establishment, had a re-think on his Afghanistan strategy and realised that he would need the services of its bête noire ie, Pakistan, in extricating itself out of the mess in Afghanistan.
In a move reminiscent of dumping Afghanistan in the lurch after ensuring the Soviet-withdrawal from Kabul, the US is yet again working towards a similar vacuum; with Pakistan rubbing its hands in glee. Suddenly, Islamabad is back in favour as all is seemingly forgotten and forgiven and Imran Khan is back to reverse-swinging his “Naya Pakistan” with revised gusto — this time in Washington, DC.
Both Pakistan and the US are masters of selective amnesia and their dalliances of the past, which included flying and feting of the Afghan mujahideen to the White House and supporting these warlords with weapons, have become a lost memory. Both Imran Khan and Trump now shake hands and the former thanks to the Presidents of the United States of America (POTUSA) with “his understanding of Pakistan’s point of view!”
The incredulity continues with Imran Khan promising, “I want to assure President Trump, Pakistan will do everything within its power to facilitate the Afghan peace process” — a rote statement that has consistently and unfailingly been dishonoured by Pakistan.
The hapless Afghan regime of Ashraf Ghani looks on with shocked bewilderment and New Delhi is left having to deal with Trump’s creative memory of Prime Minister Modi apparently asking him to mediate in Kashmir!
The US President’s statements were rightfully, strongly and unequivocally slammed by New Delhi as outrightly incorrect and the same got acknowledged by other functionaries at the Capitol Hill. However, Imran Khan persisted with his façade of “surprise” at the Indian response to “Trump’s offer of mediation” as he feigned ignorance at India’s unwavering and consistent stand on a bilateral framework on Kashmir.
Today, Imran Khan is on a charm offensive both domestically (flying commercial) and internationally, staying at his Ambassador’s residence to avoid “unnecessary expenditure.” Trump has added one more to his embarrassingly long list of documented inexactitudes, which now “exceed 10,000.”
Both the US and Pakistan are again in a convenient and tactical huddle that suits their individual and topical urgencies, without bothering about the past, present or future with such tenuous underpinnings. Beyond the reality of US-Pakistan sparring openly, just a few months back, this region has not forgotten the murky history of American hand in the bloodshed of the 1980s during the height of the Cold War or indeed in India with the US’ seventh fleet sailing menacingly towards the Bay of Bengal in 1971. It would be premature for either the US to trust the Pakistanis or vice versa as history suggests that both nations ultimately succumb to their basic instincts and while India, Afghanistan and Iran will lick their wounds for now — the “deep state” within Pakistan will ultimately rear its head and both Trump and Khan will end up looking like their predecessors.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)
Writer: Bhopinder Singh
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Boris Johnson has been appointed British PM by the Conservative Party. Can he deliver on promises?
It appears that to be a successful populist leader in the English-speaking world, you need to conjure up a cool acronym. Donald Trump’s mantra in the 2016 elections was to ‘Make America Great Again’ or MAGA. And now that Trump’s ‘friend’ Boris Johnson is in 10, Downing Street, the home of the British Prime Minister, he has come up with the slogan ‘DUDE’ to outline his objectives. Those are to ‘Deliver Brexit’; ‘Unite Britain’; ‘Defeat (Jeremy) Corbyn’ the leader of the opposition Labour Party and lastly to ‘Energise the nation’, the final one coming because, as Johnson himself noted in his acceptance speech, ‘DUD’ doesn’t make for a great tagline. One could argue nor does ‘DUDE’ which sounds more like something a college student would say rather than a 55-year old shaggy-haired populist whose insurrection doomed the government of his predecessor Theresa May. Those who know Johnson, and thanks to his past as a journalist in major British newspapers, have said that being Prime Minister was his ultimate ambition. But make no mistake, he might fashion himself as a populist but is a product of Britain’s upper classes, much like Donald Trump is a product of the New York elite. And Johnson has the extremely difficult task of uniting the nation and delivering Brexit at the same time. He has taken the hard line stance that a ‘Hard’ Brexit, that is the British exiting the European Union (EU) without any sort of a deal, come what may by October 31. There are several problems with this stance expected to cripple trade and cause major issues on Ireland, which remains divided between the British North and the Republic of Ireland. His tactic of negotiating with a gun to his head with the EU looks suspiciously like Pakistan’s negotiating tactics.
But the question is will ‘BoJo’ change now that he has the top job? Previously he held the high-profile role of Mayor of London where he managed to be re-elected as a Conservative in a Left-leaning city. A floppy-haired “likeable rogue”, whose private life still makes headlines, he was pro-migrant, pro-LGBT rights and even pro-Europe. Some are hoping that BoJo will now take a turn and manage to deliver good governance, especially since he is by far and away Britain’s most popular politician. But with just about a 100 days to go before Brexit, no matter which sort, he has an unenviable task in front of him. And clever acronyms which might make you an entertaining writer does not make one a statesman.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
As the campaign for the US presidential elections, slated for November 2020, heats up, can the man be defeated?
Much newsprint has been wasted by commentators doubting US President Donald Trump’s intelligence or his methods, particularly his single-minded determination to keep Twitter relevant in foreign ministry offices and corporate headquarters across the world, let alone American homes. Yet one must admit he is a smart man. You do not win the US presidency against an establishment candidate after securing your party’s candidacy in a crowded field. Trump’s upending of the global trade paradigm has been drastic but he does make some sense when it comes to domestic priorities. But his latest statement against a few American Congresswomen from the Democratic Party, telling them in no uncertain terms that if they do not “love America” they should go back to where they “came from,” is distressing. It just so happens that Ilhan Omar, one of the Congresswomen attacked by Trump, is of Somalian descent and this is nothing more than Trump catering to the nativist part of the American electorate. Instead of reaching out to minorities, who are unlikely to vote for him, he is trying to energise his base. So the “Lock her up”, Trump’s slogan against Hillary Clinton, has been intensified now with his supporters chanting, “Send her home” about Omar.
Trump has been pilloried by political rivals. The Democratic Party, fractured by a contentious primary election to select the man or woman who will contest against him, has backed Omar and her fellow Congresswomen. Even foreign politicians have attacked him, particularly from Europe. Yet, Trump’s attack resonates as nativist forces in the US look on immigrants as interlopers in their nation, ignoring that immigrants have actually been change agents. But with few of Trump’s Republican allies attacking him, he will carry on this path and his cries against immigrants will get stronger. It remains to be seen if the Democratic Party can put up a credible candidate who can stand against Trump. The risk they run, like several other liberal parties across the world, is that they might put someone from the extreme-left ideological wing of the party who will stand little chance against Trump’s intelligence. Some say Trump was a failure in everything that he did, his business ventures have never been as successful as he claims. But looking at him now, it is impossible to see how he is anything but a winner.
Writer & Courtesy: Pioneer
The state of action and reaction between Israelis and Palestinians has continued for decades with several wars in addition to local level intersecting conflicts
It is perhaps for the first time since the Sadat-Begin accord presided over by Jimmy Carter 40 years ago that the US last month announced a very laudable and a concrete proposal for the development and mainstreaming of Palestinians. Worth over $7 billion, the plan was unveiled at a recent conference in Bahrain by Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump. Though the Palestinians did not attend, some Israeli private entrepreneurs were present. For the present, without an official Israeli approval, it is difficult to visualise any forward movement towards the implementation of such a proposal, which made virtually no contribution towards ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
To the current generation of youth, Islamic terrorism is synonymous with images of 9/11, Osama Bin Laden and ISIS. To their parents, it would be the Munich Olympics massacre, a violent Beirut and numerous hijackings. Research papers and books have been written to theorise that Islam is a manifestation of a violent civilisation and its interface with other religious communities bristles with faultlines. While this may be only true in certain specific instances and not as a generality, at the same time it would be important for us to understand the genesis of violence involving Islamic groups in the contemporary scene. For this we have to go back in history by about a hundred years.
When Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb, assassinated Archduke Francis Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, a series of events was set in motion leading to the World War I and the subsequent collapse of the Ottoman and other empires. After the war, this resulted in uncertainty for Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Algeria, countries which had been conquered 400 years ago for the Ottomans by Selim I. Later, under the aegis of the League of Nations, a permanent Mandate Commission was constituted, which allowed certain countries to be administered by those who had won or occupied such territories. Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq and Algeria, all parts of former Turkish Empire, were classified as category A mandates, which were entitled to eventual independence. The administration of Iraq, Palestine and Egypt was handed over to Britain while Syria and Lebanon were awarded to France. Keeping in line with the spirit of the mandates, Iraq became independent in 1937.
At this stage it is important to recall that while the war was still raging, in November 1917, then foreign secretary of Britain, Arthur James Balfour wrote to Baron Rothschild, head of an English Jewish banking family, pledging British support to Zionist efforts for establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. This was a war-time communication known as the Balfour declaration, conveying an intent on future policy in order to win over the Russians, who were at that time under the influence of Jews, for their greater involvement in the war effort as at that time Kerensky was playing a very dominant role in the government. Later, however, with the success of the Russian revolution, also in November 1917, the ground situation changed drastically as Lenin declared an armistice with Germany unilaterally. Nevertheless, the British promise remained intact.
Even though the administration under the mandate was in the hands of Britain, Jews from all over the world began to make serious plans and efforts to start administering the Palestinian territory sometime in future. This led to heavy influx of Jews into this area. Despite the fact that some of these areas were in an active theatre of World War II, the hardliners wanted the mandate to be circumvented as quickly as possible. The obvious aim was that when Palestine would be ripe for independence and the British left after the completion of the mandate, it should become a Jewish territory. In due course, such hardliners began a campaign to harass the British so that they were compelled to vacate Palestine sooner than later. In this context, the activities of the Irgun and the Stern gangs, both Jewish terrorist outfits, are worth recalling.
Their campaign began in November 1944 when the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister for the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo. This was followed by an escalation of violence in Palestine, with several incidents against the British. In the absence of any clear directions on policy, the British chose not to respond. But when Irgun launched a wave of attacks, bombing trains and bridges connecting Palestine to neighbouring states, a response came swiftly. Mass arrests were made across Palestine and over 2,000 Zionists were arrested. However, none of the ring leaders of Irgun or Stern Gang was caught. This resulted in escalation of violence with Irgun inflicting a devastating blow to the British rule in Palestine when it bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. As is well known, this bombing was planned by the leader of the Irgun, Menachem Begin, later to be the sixth Prime Minister of Israel and a joint winner of a Nobel Peace Prize for the 1978 Arab-Israel accord.
Begin, in his book The Revolt, has explained “history and experience taught us that if we are able to destroy the prestige of British in Palestine, the regime will break. Since we found the enslaving government’s weak point, we did not let it go.” After the success of this bombing, the Irgun and the Stern Gang extended their activities outside Palestine. An Irgun cell bombed the British Embassy in Rome and followed this with a series of attacks on British targets in Germany. Later, Irgun bombed a club in London, injuring several servicemen. Prominent British public figures connected with Palestine also received death threats. In June 1947, the Stern Gang launched a letter-bomb campaign in Britain, which targetted prominent member of the Cabinet. Sir Stafford Cripps barely escaped becoming a victim. Similarly, Sir Anthony Eden was lucky to have escaped. There was no counter from the British, much less from the Palestinians, as the British by then, had almost made up their mind to quit the mandate.
Ultimately the strength of the Jewish activists, with support of influential Jews from all over the world and amply demonstrated by its armed struggle in Palestine, persuaded the United Nations in November 1947 to partition Palestine into separate, independent Jewish and Arab states. This led to a virtual free for all and a war-like situation between various competing factions from which Israel emerged as a viable State, while Palestine ceased to exist. The Palestinian population, largely leaderless and ill-prepared for war, was driven out of what became Israeli territory by a combination of deliberate attacks. When the war ended, Palestinians had been reduced to a refugee status and kept in camps. Not surprisingly, this gave birth to a new generation of insurgents, who later turned to the same methods that Jews had used to drive out the British. This was the birth of the PLO.
The seeds of terrorism had been sown with the tree growing rapidly with several branches of varied shades. Some were taken over by the Left wing revolutionaries nurtured by the Cold War politics. On the other hand, we had a nation state fighting for its existence, security and sovereignty. This state of action and reaction between Israelis and Palestinians has continued for decades with several wars in addition to local level intersecting conflicts. In the mean time, the politics of Islamic dominance, Gulf and Middle East oil, besides the super power rivalries and their attempts to ensure through surrogates that their sphere of influence remains strong and intact, has kept the pot boiling. This has had consequences for the world which have been serious and long-lasting. The fallout from this insurgency of eight decades ago is still playing out on the local, regional and world stages in different forms by different players.
(The writer is a retired Delhi Police Commissioner and former Uttarakhand Governor)
Writer: KK PAUL
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Former president Mohammad Morsi’s tragic death in captivity has once again highlighted the tense relationship of his Islamist party and the Arab World
The sudden death of Mohammad Morsi, Egypt’s first elected Prime Minister, who was overthrown in a military coup in 2013 and was facing trial for various charges and a 20-year sentence, has once again brought the international media’s focus on the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) — the party Morsi was a member of. The MB was not a new party that had emerged from the rumblings of the so-called “Arab Spring” in 2011 — an uprising that saw the toppling of a number of authoritarian regimes across the Arab world. It was, and still is, one of the oldest mainstream “Islamist” outfits in the Middle East, which succeeded in coming to power in Egypt in 2012 through a general election.
The MB members also managed to win the largest percentage of votes — 37.4 per cent — during the 2011 Tunisia election as the Ennahda Party. Turkey’s Justice & Development Party (AKP), which has been winning elections since 2002, is often understood to be the Turkish version of MB. According to Fait Muedini’s The Role of Religion in the Arab Spring, the MB only played a “limited role” during the Arab Spring. Muedini writes that MB didn’t want to overplay its “Islamist” credentials during the unrest, which could have made it convenient for the state and Government in Egypt and Tunisia to denounce the uprisings as “Islamist.” This way, the protests may have lost international support.
As the ruling parties weakened and disintegrated during the protests, new parties emerged, but they were not as organised as the MB. Over the decades, the MB had established widespread political and social networks, which helped it win the largest number of votes during the first post-Arab Spring elections in Egypt and Tunisia. Professor Edip Asaf of Istanbul University writes in an essay that the MB looked towards Turkey’s AKP “as an example”. He echoes French political scientist and author Oliver Roy’s assertion that the AKP’s “Turkish model” became popular among Islamic outfits such as the MB in their bid to become part of the political mainstream, without overtly flexing their “Islamist” muscle.
Refuting the influential American academic Samuel Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilisations’ hypothesis — which could not find any cultural or political common ground between the ‘authoritarian Muslim world’ and the democratic West — the AKP and the MB responded with a new paradigm: Clash within civilisations. This differentiated between moderate, democratic Muslim forces and the radical and reactionary ones.
According to this paradigm, the friction and tension within the Muslim world (between the moderates and the radicals) had produced political phenomena such as Turkey’s AKP and later, the democratic coming to power of the MB in Egypt and the Ennahda Party in Tunisia. These were Islamic outfits, who agreed to become inclusive, and focussed more on addressing economic issues rather than on the imposition of religious laws.
But the AKP had evolved in a staunchly secular Muslim republic. The many movements, which preceded the formation of the AKP, were non-militant and accepted the principles of Turkish nationalism, established during the formation of the modern Turkish republic in 1923 by Ataturk.
Even though the MB had decided to let go of its militant tendencies in the 1970s, it could not entirely alter the perception that the party remained rooted in the ideas of one of its most celebrated heroes, Sayyid Qutb, who was executed in 1966 for allegedly plotting the assassination of the then Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Interestingly, the MB was established in Egypt in 1928 as a movement inspired by Muslim Modernism and Pan-Islamism. Muslim modernism had been developing ever since the mid-19th century as a way to address the rise of European colonialism through the adoption of modern sciences and economics. Muslim Modernism advocated the readjustment of Islamic traditions and polities through “modernist” tools such as pragmatism, rationalism, science, capitalism and/or socialism.
Pan-Islamism, on the other hand, wanted to do this to help the Muslims gain ascendency in colonial conditions, and once in, dismantle Western colonial supremacy and carve out a modern universal Islamic caliphate. According to Malise Ruthven, in Islam in the World, the MB became more conservative and militant once various reformist ideas of Muslim modernism began being adopted by various non-religious Muslim leaders and outfits.
By the 1940s, the MB was being accused for organising assassinations and bomb attacks against colonial British officials in Egypt and the country’s monarch. In 1948, an MB member assassinated the country’s Prime Minister. However, in 1949, MB’s founder Hassan Al-Banna was killed in a retaliatory strike by Egypt’s secret police.
According to HM Hamouda’s 1985 tome, Secrets of the Movement of Free Officers, the free officers movement, which toppled the Egyptian monarchy in 1952 and ousted the British, was formed within the MB. According to an essay by Selma Botman in the 1986 edition of Middle Eastern Studies, anti-monarchy and anti-British Egyptian officers had used the secret network constructed by the MB to facilitate their attempt to take over power.
However, by 1954, the now-in-power free officers movement clashed with the MB, accusing it of trying to assassinate Nasser. MB denounced the new Government as being “anti-Islam” and “secular.” Hundreds of MB leaders were arrested and jailed.
One such leader was Qutb, an unassuming man, who had joined MB after returning from a trip to the US. Influenced by the writings of controversial French eugenicist and alleged Nazi sympathiser Alexis Carrel — who often attacked Western modernity — and by the prolific South Asian Islamic scholar Abul Ala Maududi, who had described modernity as modern-day “jahiliya,” Qutb advocated an armed social and political struggle against this jahiliya.
Many MB activists escaped arrest and were given asylum by Saudi Arabia. After Nasser’s death in 1970 and Egypt’s restoration of friendly ties with the US and Saudi Arabia, hundreds of MB members were allowed to return to the country. MB decided to renounce violence and enter mainstream politics. Disagreeing with this resolution and angered by Egypt’s recognition of Israel in 1979, two groups separated from MB. They insisted on following Qutb’s teachings. One such faction assassinated Egyptian president Anwar Sadat in 1981.
Nevertheless, the MB as a whole continued on its “mainstream” path. But the MB is condemned by its own history. Those who came out to protest against the Morsi regime claimed that, no matter how “moderate” it pretends to be, MB’s end goal remains the enactment of a totalitarian theocracy. The opponents of this view bemoan that the coup against Morsi marked the end of a unique experiment in which a once-militant Islamist outfit was willing to take a more pluralistic and democratic path.
MB’s erstwhile backers, the Saudi monarchy, disagreed. In an environment of monarchy-backed reform within the kingdom, it now sees MB as a dangerous impediment, which can use its vast network across the Arab world to undermine Saudi influence and trigger populist uprisings, including one in the kingdom.
Either MB will look to further modify its course to prove that it is no more a theocratic threat or a democratic ruse, or it may restore its militant tendencies. But I believe the latter is not possible in a world where there will not be a Saudi Arabia or a US welcoming escaping MB cadres from the arm of the Egyptian state.
(The Dawn)
Writer: Nadeem Paracha
Courtesy: The Pioneer
In other continents, too, nations have to kowtow to China in return for investment and debt funding, though they are slowly waking up to the fact that all is not rosy
China has managed to tame the wild Tibetan yaks, according to Xinhua. “Under the touch of the petite scientist Yan Ping, the tall and powerful black yak, weighing over 400 kg, is as obedient as a lamb,” a report said. The news agency added, “Unlike other yaks, this one has no horns.” Yan, who works for the Lanzhou Institute of Husbandry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, explained, “The Ashidan yak has no horns and has a mild temperament, easy to keep and feed.” How metaphorical this is.
Beijing seems to have developed some expertise in taming humans and nations, too. The Taiwan News reported how “Manila kowtows to Beijing, cedes Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in South China Sea.” The once-wild President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, is said to have ceded “ground in the South China Sea through an ‘informal’ and ‘undocumented’ [agreement] with President Xi Jinping.” The Taiwanese newspaper noted that many citizens of the Philippines were “already concerned over the Government’s unwillingness to safeguard the territory of the country’s EEZ.” The article concluded that this makes the Duterte Government appear even weaker in protecting the nation’s maritime territory. But it is not only the Philippines, which has been tamed and has accepted Beijing’s diktats. India’s northern neighbour, Nepal, seems to have fallen in the trap, too.
Newsgram, an independent media agency, recently pointed out that it is the Nepal Government in Kathmandu, which forces local journalists to avoid critical reporting on China, the largest investor of the Himalayan land-locked nation. Anil Giri, the foreign affairs correspondent for The Kathmandu Post, told Voice of America that “journalists are discouraged from covering Tibetan affairs to mollify China and that Government officials shy away from commenting on China-related issues. China sponsors junkets for Nepalese journalists and that’s why probably we don’t see a lot of criticism about China’s growing investment in Nepal, Chinese doing business in Nepal and China’s growing political clout in Nepal.”
The lamb-lamb attitude in Kathmandu was clear in an incident that took place recently at the Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmandu. The Himalayan Times reported: “Man labelled Dalai Lama’s agent, deported to the US.” Apparently, the Nepal immigration mistook a Tibetan called Penpa Tsering, holding a US passport and arriving from America with his homonym as former representative to the Dalai Lama in the US. Nepali officials argued that the man was “on China’s most-wanted list.” In Dharamsala, the former Tibetan representative observed: “It clearly shows that the Chinese Government’s pressure on Nepal is working.”
Nepalese Home Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa affirmed that the deportation was only an act “of honouring the ‘One-China’ policy.” A few weeks earlier, two members of Nepal’s Parliament, Ekwal Miyan and Pradip Yadav, had to apologise for having attended the Seventh World Parliamentarians’ Convention on Tibet, which was held in Latvia’s capital Riga between May 7 and 10, after Beijing pressurised Kathmandu.
In a joint Press statement, the two MPs declared that they “happened to inadvertently attend the conference …due to wrong information …when they were on a private visit to Turkey, Switzerland and Latvia.” They had even given their speeches by mistake! This shows how China can today dictate terms to “small” countries like Nepal.
At the same time, Xinhua proudly reminded its readers that in the summer of 1921, “a dozen of Communist Party of China (CPC) members were forced to leave a small building in the French concession area of Shanghai and boarded a boat on the Nanhu Lake in Jiaxing, Zhejiang Province, concluding the first National Congress of the CPC. …Since then, the [communist] party has managed to lead a vulnerable country to move closer towards the world’s centre stage.”
The news agency asserted: “The Chinese nation has stood up, grown rich and is becoming strong. …Socialism with Chinese characteristics have maintained stability and vitality in the tide of global changes.”
The Tibetans, who have been tamed more than 60 years ago, are an easy prey. A couple of weeks ago, a Tibetan Minister in the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) in Dharamsala was denied visa to attend a conference in Mongolia. Karma Gelek Yuthok, Minister of Religion and Culture, was to attend the Asian Buddhist Conference in the Mongolian capital, Ulaanbaatar. The Minister could only say that it was “the clearest sign yet of China’s aggressive campaign of undermining core democratic freedoms across the world.”
On the Roof of the World, China has now all the cards in hand to nominate its own 15th Dalai Lama. Gyaltsen Norbu, the Panchen Lama, selected and groomed by Beijing, has been elected as the president of the Tibetan branch of the Buddhist Association of China. Gyaltsen Norbu recently visited Thailand. On his return to Beijing, he affirmed: “We are fortunate to be in the era of the development and the rise of New China and thank the Communist Party of China for leading the Chinese people in achieving the tremendous transformation of standing up, growing rich and becoming strong.”
In other continents, too, nations have to kowtow, though they are slowly waking up to the fact that all is not rosy. The examples of Sri Lanka and the Maldives are often cited, but there are some in Africa too.
The Ethiopian Business Review recently had a cover-story: “Africa falling into debt-trap” while The African Exponent, an online outlet for African news, dared to write: “Horror Awaits African Leaders as China Withdraws Debt Funding.” It explained: “After an impressive run of a good relationship with China, scooping up at least $9.8 billion between 2006 and 2017, making it Africa’s third-largest recipient of Chinese loans, the good ‘friendship’ between the two countries seems to have come to a snag.” The reporter noted that in September, China promised another $60 billion in aid and loans to the continent: “Xi Jinping promised the money would come with no political strings attached.”
But all good things have an end. When Uhuru Kenyatta, the Kenyan President, visited China in May, “the atmosphere that greeted him was unfamiliar to the China of old. Questions were raised about corruption, as well as the figures and sums [that Kenya] had proposed.” Kenyatta did not like it.
The Chinese even wanted to know if he planned to stand for office again in 2022: “It was like talking to the World Bank,” observed an aide to the Kenyan leader. All this, as well as the recent events in Hong Kong, show that the taming of humans or nations cannot be taken for granted; nobody remains a lamb forever.
(The writer is an expert on India-China relations)
Writer: Claude Arpi
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Setbacks in India-Nepal ties have helped Beijing make considerable gains in that country. But close cultural ties bind Kathmandu and New Delhi and the Govt should work on them
Yahan sab China ki taraf ja rahe hain. Aapko kuch karna padega (Here everyone is being drawn to China. You have to do something).” This Nepalese politician sounded the warning early last year after the new Nepal Communist Party, which merged with the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre), won landslide electoral victories with a near two-thirds majority in the lower House, a majority in the upper House, Governments in six of the seven provinces and victories in 80 per cent of the local body elections. That the Chinese played an unprecedented role in this political transformation of Nepal is no secret. All previous landmark changes were India-driven.
In 1770, the founder of modern Nepal, King Prithvi Narayan Shah’s observation that Nepal is a root vegetable between two boulders has remained a variable constant. Variable because the country has swayed with the wind and bent towards whichever power was stronger in periods of history — British India/India or China. Nepal was a tributary to China and the latter claimed suzerainty. Vis-a-vis India, it found its sovereign space by playing the extra-regional China card.
China’s rise in Nepal is unstoppable at least till 2021 when the next elections are due. Kathmandu’s policy of equidistance between its two giant neighbours has acquired a Beijing tilt, courtesy New Delhi’s serial blunders since 2015, which gave rise to marked anti-India sentiment — though New Delhi lived in denial — and sovereignty-based nationalism. China’s proclaimed policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of any country was ditched once the Maoists came to power in 2008. Soon, like India, it was implicated in regime change. Kathmandu did not have to play the Beijing card. Beijing dealt it itself. In the recent history, Nepal has viewed India and not China as the threat. Which was why the bulk of Nepalese Army deployment faced south, in Terai, India being the subject of vigil. With deep pockets, China’s inevitable rise began in 2005 when King Gyanendra facilitated Beijing’s entry into the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc) as an observer. At that time, China was vociferously critical of the Maoists, who were fighting the civil war, calling them “miscreants”, “anti-state rebels” and “hijackers of Mao’s fair name.” With remarkable alacrity, China changed tack once Maoists took power, saying “we have rediscovered ideological similarities with our comrades.” Beijing dropped the King whom it had supported in the war and stated that it will protect Nepal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Gyanendra committed hara-kiri with his palace coup, creating conditions for dismantling of monarchy and a new Constitution.
In Nepal, China has been looking beyond Tibet, its “One China” policy and the virtual control of the 17 northern border districts. Kathmandu will never displease Beijing over managing the 30,000 Tibetan refugees in Nepal. The Dalai Lama’s office was ordered closed in 2005 and refugee crossings into Tibet through Nepal reduced from 3,000 to 300 annually. China has invested heavily in Nepal’s domestic politics, economics, military and people-to-people relations besides the art of regime change. Beijing facilitated the formation of the Left alliance and its merger and has reached out to all political parties and civil society groups. In 2004, it had trained 40 bureaucrats in China. That number has jumped to 800 civil servants in 2019. Since 2013, it is the largest Foreign Direct investment (FDI) investor and provider of Official Development Assistance (ODA), overtaking India. In 2017, China committed $8.3 billion at the Kathmandu Investment Conclave of which $1.3 billion has been utilised.
President Xi Jinping, who is yet to visit Nepal, wants to create a cross-border Special Economic Zone and wishes India to join hands in the development of Nepal, echoing the sentiments of Nepali leaders that Kathmandu should act as a bridge between China and India. China has bagged most infrastructure projects — like international airports in Pokhara and Lumbini and refurbishing the Kathmandu airport — which were initially awarded to India and for the first time, hydro-power projects. Nepal has joined the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), envisages ambitious rail and road corridors from Tibet into Nepal, touching the Indian border, ultimately connecting the Indian Ocean. At present, there is the North-South road, which is in a state of disrepair since the 2015 earthquake. The project is facing tests of economic viability, funding and topographical challenges. It is unlikely to materialise anytime soon.
High-level political visits to China are on the rise. President Bidhya Devi Bhandari, Prime Minister KP Oli and Prime Minister-in-waiting, Prachanda, have been invited at least twice, besides a slew of other leaders. Many agreements have been signed, including Trade and Transit, dry ports, supply of petroleum products and access to seven Chinese ports. A look at the map will show the cost profligacy of these alternatives in the event of another economic blockade. China wants a Comprehensive Strategic Programme with the Nepal Army, which has received $32.3 million in grant, 10 times higher than earlier. It has also increased its seats in China’s War College and is the recipient of specialised equipment for UN peace-keeping.
China’s soft power is manifest through Confucian institutions. At least 45 Chinese study centres and Nepali schools offer free Mandarin courses. Buddhism is being promoted through a Chinese-dominated Buddhist circuit focussed on Lumbini, emphasising Buddha was born in Nepal. People-to-people contacts have risen sharply with Chinese tourists swarming Nepal. China has penetrated the Terai, which was once India’s red line.
A Chinese think-tank in 2018 suggested that India should be punished for giving the Dalai Lama a long rope, including visiting Tawang in 2015. One of the likely places of retribution is Nepal, where there is no Wuhan spirit. Beijing has taken advantage of the anti-India sentiment and the Nepali media, while being critical of India, favours China. A historical mistake of preventing Chinese occupation of Tibet has come to haunt India as China eyes Indian markets across the strategic Indo Gangetic Plains via the planned China Nepal Economic Corridor (CNEC). A day may come when China will object to the use of Nepali troops in the Indian Army — along with ex-servicemen, the biggest pro-India constituency — confronting the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Even as Beijing has made considerable political and economic gains, China cannot become an alternative for dependence on India, given that geography, history, culture, religion and the open border, across which six to seven million Nepalis move for livelihood, bind India and Nepal together. Still, the ominous unfolding in Nepal is mainly the result of the inept handling by the Modi 1.0 Government.
(The writer is a retired Major General of the Indian Army and founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the revamped Integrated Defence Staff)
Writer: Ashok K Mehta
Courtesy: The Pioneer
If the US and North Korea do manage to work around their hostilities, then it would be a historic end to their war
If one had forecast during the 2016 United States presidential election campaign that the person who wins it would end up stepping inside the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) or North Korea to most, you would have been laughed at. Many people in capitals across the world believed that we were just one step away from nuclear Armageddon and some very reputable international publications were trying to predict what would happen to the world after the Korean peninsula was blown into oblivion with millions dead in Pyongyang and Seoul. But the budding, almost bizarre friendship between US President Donald Trump and DPRK Communist Party Chairman Kim Jong-Un, with two conferences in Singapore and Hanoi, have left even the most cynical of veteran diplomats stunned. And now, Trump and Chairman Kim’s meeting at Panmunjong, the ‘peace village’ at the heart of the demilitarised zone between the two Koreas, has stupefied everyone, particularly after the last set of talks between the two men ended in an impasse.
What is even stranger about all these meetings is that the US continues to enforce sanctions against the DPRK, including seizing a ship recently, and accuses Kim and his government of breaking all sorts of sanctions, including supplying missile technology to Trump’s primary target of Iran. Technically, the DPRK and the US are still in a state of war, since the armistice that was signed on July 27, 1953, just ended hostilities, not the distrust. Trump and Kim aim to end that, and the former’s complaints about the US spending on defending its allies in North-East Asia play a role in all this. Trump possibly seeks validation, not just from himself but also from the rest of the world, that he is a good negotiator who finally made peace with the DPRK, something that 11 of his predecessors could not achieve. One mistake several countries dealing with Trump have made is to assume that he is a clown and an idiot, and that includes the Chinese, Europeans and possibly even the North Koreans. But he is a very clever man indeed who knows that alternatively playing the clown and the provocateur has been working well for him. But occasionally, like in Panmunjong, he plays the statesman as well. You never know, Trump, the statesman, might go down in history as a legend.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
The US President has trained his trade guns on India. How this will end depends a lot on Modi’s diplomatic skills
As Narendra Modi took off on Air India 1 towards Japan, he could scarcely have imagined that while he was airborne, US President Donald Trump would make India the latest victim of his incessant tweeting. This, less than a day after his top diplomat came to India and said that trade is not a problem and India-US defence cooperation is top of the agenda for his government. But with Trump, nobody really knows what he is thinking and doing. He has truly upended global diplomacy and almost single-handedly kept the micro-blogging service Twitter relevant, blowing hot and cold. Trump is upset that India increased tariffs on 28 American imports soon after the US removed the benefits that Indian exporters received under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) impacting $5.5 billion of Indian exports. This is not the first time he has vocally complained about Indian tariffs; he has in the past complained about the extremely high import curbs India has for motorcycles, Harley-Davidson to be precise, but this is his first Twitter missive to India on trade.
India has upset the US on many fronts.The latter is angry we are purchasing the S400 Surface-To-Air missile defence system from Russia. Our e-commerce policies have been vehemently opposed by American retailing giant Walmart, now owner of Flipkart as well as Amazon. US financial services firms are upset with India’s data localisation norms and, of course, Americans have always been upset at the way Indian IT firms are “taking away jobs.” The US has, therefore, threatened to cut back the number of H-1B visas that India gets allotted. And while External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar made clear to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Delhi that India would take its own decisions with regard to the S400 purchase and Huawei equipment for India’s telecom networks, we are unwittingly playing a role in Trump’s increasingly angst-ridden issues with China. But at the same time, India is a vital part of the US’ strategy to contain China going forward. The Indo-US ties, despite the trade issues, have never been better, particularly militarily, and Trump and Modi appear to get along. Yet it will take extreme diplomatic caution to deal with the US President. Other countries, particularly China and Iran, have learnt not to second-guess him and hoping that a Democratic candidate will defeat him cannot be the central part of a strategy. Of course, Modi could learn golf, something that appears to have worked for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, but dealing with Trump on trade is not going to be easy.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month