While US troops will remain on tenterhooks globally, Trump has provided ammunition to his Democratic opponents for a very interesting election campaign at home

2020 is an election year in the USA. President Donald Trump is trying for a second term. The American public will definitely review his performance before giving him a second chance. As far as foreign policy is concerned, Trump’s record has been a mixed bag. While many term it as a “term of controversies,” the cornerstone of the Trump Administration’s foreign policy has been “principled realism” or more popular “America First.” After all, what else is the purpose of any country’s foreign policy except to put its own interests first? Trump’s foreign policy vision smacked of sabre rattling rather than reconciliation. He was not only distrustful of US allies, scornful of international institutions and indifferent to the liberal international order that the US had sustained for nearly eight decades but also displayed inconsistency by blowing hot and cold on many occasions.

Trump is bound to tout his record on foreign policy as a resounding success. While he hasn’t built a wall and expensed it to Mexico, he has followed through on pledges to withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement and the Paris climate accord, to renegotiate NAFTA and to aggressively press China on trade. He has delivered on many of his campaign promises, whether the rest of the US supports them or not. In doing so he has earned the title of “international bully,” annoying many allies and friendly nations, undermining international institutions, dishonouring treaties and accords and creating flashpoints. Conventional wisdom says that foreign policy does not win polls. But Trump seems to be faced with a challenge that may break this.

The majoritarian view in the US still favours engagement and shared leadership in global affairs, as well as US participation in alliances and pacts, while Trump continues to move in the opposite direction. As per a survey, 57 per cent Americans disapprove his foreign policy performance. The latest episode in the Middle East will definitely add to his woes and the democratic hopefuls will exploit these vulnerabilities during campaigning. This time, foreign policy might be a major theme for the election and just might tip the balance.

The tension in the Middle East has been building for quite some time and Trump did display restraint. Iran, no doubt, was testing Trump’s patience by repeated misadventures like the shooting down of a US surveillance drone, mining the Strait of Hormuz and an assault on Saudi oil facilities in response to sanctions. Trump all the while avoided retaliating militarily, preferring to tighten the noose with additional sanctions. The brain behind Iran’s defiance was the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Quds Force, Major General Qasem Soleimani.

Soleimani had been in the bad books of the US ever since he emerged as the mastermind of Iranian use of proxies to target US and Western assets and servicemen, promoting terrorism and conducting destabilising activities in countries hostile to Iran. He was credited with conducting proxy wars in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. He controlled much of Lebanon through the Hezbollah. He was also the mastermind behind the survival of the Assad regime in Syria. The Americans hated him for being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of  soldiers in Iraq at the hands of Shia militias after US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Though, later he cooperated with the US in fighting the ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

But once Trump called off the nuclear treaty with Iran and imposed sanctions, he once again became a sworn enemy of the US. He crossed the red line by attacking an US military base in Iraq that resulted in the death of a US contractor and injured several servicemen. That Trump would not tolerate any loss to American lives was clear by the way he ordered air strikes against five targets in Iraq and Syria associated with Iran-backed Shia militia Kataib Hezbollah that was believed to be responsible for the attack on the US base near Kirkuk. Justifiably, the Pentagon termed these strikes as “defensive” since they were in retaliation to attacks on US servicemen and civilians in Iraq. But Trump surprised the world by using US military power to kill Soleimani through a rocket attack. Pentagon once again termed it as “defensive” since Trump was convinced that Soleimani was visiting Iraq to intensify attacks against US bases in Iraq. The US strike also killed a top Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al Muhandis, an adviser to Soleimani and a dozen of militia men, evoking a quick and angry response from both Iran and Iraq. While Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran, to whom Soleimani reported directly, vowed revenge, the Iraqi Prime Minister termed it as a violation of a deal for keeping US troops in his country.

Is it really a defensive act or a provocative one? Has Trump overreacted? The chances of an all-out war may not be very high but it would lead to escalation in the low-level conflict between the US and Iran with global consequences. Violent retaliations will be there. Considering that the Americans are thin on the ground and widely dispersed in  foreign lands, a chain of reprisals is going to hit them unless the US is willing to escalate to a full blown war. This may prove costly as far as American casualties are concerned. Under such circumstances, would Trump be able to sustain his doctrine of military retaliation whenever an American life is lost, is a million dollar question.  That, too, in an election year. Additional deployment of 3,000 troops in Kuwait to ward off the Iranian threat and failure to reduce the jackboot strength in Afghanistan may also prove costly for Trump. What is surprising is why Trump decided to strike now when he is also facing an impeachment? Trump was possibly irked by ransacking of the US Embassy 104 acre Green Zone compound in Baghdad. Yet, killing the Iranian General on Iraqi soil will remain a questionable strategic decision. Continuation of American troops in Iraq will come under pressure in view of the response of the Iraqi Prime Minister.

Apart from usual attack on US military commanders and soldiers or launching operations to destroy its bases and assets, Iran may also resort to cyber-attacks considering the over dependence of Americans on the internet. In a worst case scenario, Iran may try to enlist Chinese and Russian support and combined with their cyber forces launch a propaganda cum perception operation against Trump, which may mar his campaign. Americans should prepare for the unexpected. There has been fair amount of criticism from the Democratic opponents of the President.

The situation in the Middle East will be highly tense, with Israel and Saudi Arabia at the receiving end. Shia terror groups in Pakistan may also become active against US targets as well as troops in Afghanistan. Soaring oil prices and tumbling share markets will be the immediate global consequences. Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden has termed it “a highly escalatory move in a highly dangerous region.” The possibility of it turning into a Shia versus Sunni conflict may disturb peace in many countries in the region.

Former Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao has criticised Trump’s decision, “US military personnel are in Iraq supposedly on an anti-IS mission. Under the Trump administration, there appears to have been mission creep, in Iraq as well as Syria, in which somehow confronting Iran has become part of a new mission. That mission has never been justified.”

India cannot remain unaffected by the events in the Middle East since it remains one of the largest oil importers of the world. Soaring oil prices apart from hitting the pockets of the common man  are also going to add to India’s economic woes when it is struggling to revive a sluggish economy. Tensions in the region may also affect the smooth oil supply. Strategically, it would have an adverse impact on India’s bid to develop Chabahar Port and develop an alternative rail, road axis to Afghanistan bypassing Pakistan and the open trade route to landlocked Central Asian Republics.

Majority across the globe term it as an “unnecessary provocation.” Surprisingly, a usually hyper Trump has chosen to remain quiet. He will be in a dilemma since he ran his campaign and continues to do so ahead of 2020 election- on the promise of an end to Middle East wars. Does he have that choice now?

While US troops will remain on tenterhooks, Trump has provided enough ammunition to his Democratic opponents for a very interesting election campaign at home. While the target will not be questioned, timing will definitely be the contentious issue.

(Writer: Anil Gupta; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

In just one careless stroke by the US, Iran has had two big diplomatic wins thanks to Soleimani’s assassination. The Iranians will probably just chug along as before, cultivating their allies in the Arab world and waiting for Trump to make his next mistake in their favour

If the Iranians played the game the same way that the American President Donald Trump does, then their revenge for the American assassination of Iran’s leading general, Qassem Soleimani, would be a simple tit-for-tat. Just kill United States (US) Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the man who actually organised the hit and then boasted about it.

If Pompeo was too hard to get at, the Iranians could get even by murdering any one or two of a hundred other senior US officials. Probably two, because the US drone that hit Soleimani’s car coming out of Baghdad airport also killed Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of Kata’ib Hezbollah, the most powerful pro-Iranian militia in Iraq.

An eye for an eye, and so forth.                Tit-for-tat is clearly the game Trump thought he was playing. That’s why he warned late on Saturday on Twitter that the US has identified 52 Iranian sites, some “at a very high level and important to Iran and the Iranian culture”, and warned they would be “hit very fast and hard” if Tehran retaliates for Soleimani’s murder.

But that’s not the game the Iranians are playing at all. It’s a much longer game than tit-for-tat, and their targets are political, not personal.

Tehran’s first response has been to announce that it will no longer respect any of the limits placed on its nuclear programmes by the 2015 nuclear treaty, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Donald Trump pulled the US out of that treaty in 2018 and Iran has given up hope that the other signatories to the pact, i.e. China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Germany, would defy the US and go on trading with Iran.

It signed the deal in order to end the sanctions but all the sanctions are effectively still in place.

Tehran didn’t say that it is now going to start working on nuclear weapons but it will resume producing enriched nuclear fuels in quantities that would make that possible.

Iran knew that it was going to have to pull the plug on the JCPOA eventually but Trump’s assassination of Soleimani lets it do so with the open or unspoken sympathy of almost every other country in the world.

And there’s a second, less visible benefit for Iran from Soleimani’s murder. It greatly strengthens Iran’s political influence in Iraq, which has been deteriorating quite fast in recent months.

Ever since the US invasion in 2003, Iraq has been the scene of intense competition for influence between the US, which dominated the country militarily and Iran, whose State religion, the Shia version of Islam, is also the faith of the majority of Iraqis.

There are still about 5,000 American troops in Iraq but they are now vastly outnumbered by local pro-Iran Shia militias, who did the heavy lifting during the 2014-17 military campaign to crush Islamic State (IS) militants in northern Iraq.  Lately, however, the pro-Iran faction has been losing ground.

When popular protests broke out in September against the huge corruption of Iraqi politicians and the impoverishment of the general population, the pro-Iran militias started killing the protesters. That was General Soleimani’s idea and a very serious mistake on his part: The street protests began to target Iranian influence as well.

But Soleimani’s murder has largely erased that resentment: He is now yet another Shia martyr to the cause. The Prime Minister of Iraq showed up at his huge funeral procession in Baghdad and an extraordinary session of the Iraqi Parliament passed a resolution demanding the expulsion of US troops from Iraq.

The Iraqi political elite may or may not carry through on that policy but there is genuine outrage that the US, technically an ally, would make an air strike just outside Baghdad airport without telling Iraq. All the worse when it kills an invited guest of the Iraqi Government who is the second most important person in Iraq’s other main ally, Iran. This is what contempt looks like and it rankles.

In just one careless stroke by the US, Iran has had two big diplomatic wins thanks to Soleimani’s assassination. The Iranians will certainly go on making deniable, pin-prick attacks on US assets and allies in the Gulf in retaliation for the US sanctions that are strangling the country’s economy but they may feel that they have already had their revenge for Soleimani.

Iran doesn’t want an all-out war with the US. The US could not win that war (unless it just nuked the whole country) but neither could Iran and it would suffer huge damage if there were a flat-out American bombing campaign using only conventional bombs and warheads.

Apocalyptic outcomes to this confrontation are possible, but they’re not very likely.

The Iranians will probably just chug along as before, staying within the letter of the law most of the time, cultivating their allies in the Arab world and waiting for Trump to make his next mistake in their favour. He’s reliable in that, if in nothing else.

(Writer: Gwynne Dyer; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

As tension between the US and Iran is bound to escalate, India and the world must be prepared to be singed by it

The drone strike in Baghdad that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force variously described by analysts as being the “Tip of the Iranian Spear”, has the potential to spark a war. One just hopes that the targetting of one of Iran’s most powerful men and its most seasoned military commander, particularly in the Middle-East, should have been taken very carefully by the US’ political and military command. Unlike someone like Osama bin Laden, who was killed by Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, in 2011, Soleimani was not difficult to find. Until a few days ago, he was secure that his position granted him a degree of safety. Unlike Houthi rebels or even the Taliban, he was the representative of a sovereign state. He had adopted an aggressive political and military tactic that continued to challenge America’s regional primacy. What his death will mean for future conflict in the Middle-East remains to be seen. Some analysts worry that this will certainly lead to a formal war between Iran and the US. But commentary and analysis on the Levant and Persia are a dime a dozen because there are other experts who say that Iran should have seen this coming, particularly after the way the US embassy in Baghdad was attacked by Shia militants in the guise of protesters a few days ago. Soleimani was the man behind a lot of America’s troubles in the region. Besides, he had irritated and attacked others as well. His hands were behind field actions such as the attacks on the Saudi Arabian refinery, sites in Yemen and the formation of the nebulous alliance between Turkey, Iran and Malaysia. However, according to some reasoned analysts, Soleimani’s violent death is a bit more troubling because he was also a “grown-up” in a world full of juvenile imbeciles, who do not think of the consequences of their actions. He thought he knew how far Iran’s enemies would push the boundaries although he did get his calculations wrong at times. One of those miscalculations cost him his life.

What does this mean for India, a country that has been trying to balance its relationship with both Iran and the US? The External Affairs Ministry put out a reasoned and sensible statement, asking the US and Iran to exercise “restraint” in order to avoid destabilising the region, but it is the Petroleum Ministry that should be petrified in case the conflict escalates. If Narendra Modi’s economic team should be grateful for anything, it is the relative calm in fuel prices over the past six years, which has allowed him to impose high taxes on petrol and diesel without too many complaints from the public at large. But with prices of petrol at the pump already reaching the Rs 80 mark, how much more can the consumers take? Surely, some anger around the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) is being fuelled by the current economic situation in the country, with job creation being not sufficient enough. Can the Indian economy afford an oil shock right now? Unlikely. With India’s relations no more being limited to oil, escalating tensions may even hurt its ambitious plans to develop the new oceanic port in Chabahar, a key transport and trade corridor with Afghanistan and Central Asia. Will Soleimani’s death lead to a war? Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khameini has already said that Tehran will retaliate. And it would do so at a suitable time and place of its choice. Although the top general’s elimination has come as a huge setback for Iran today, it is still very much capable of leading a war against America, howsoever asymmetrical. Should this happen, hostilities between the US and Iran are bound to spell turmoil in the entire Gulf region and lead to a major conflagration. Both the US and Iran are to go to polls soon. A full-scale conflict should not become the inflicting point for either to win over the people. Also, despite his demise, may be the grown-ups can come to the table and de-escalate the situation.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

The siege of Nankana Sahib exposed Imran Khan’s motivated championship of the Sikh cause

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has to give up his blunderous ways if he wants to convince the world of his credibility. While “championing the cause” of minorities in India and using an old video from another country as visual evidence of what he calls “pogroms” here, he conveniently forgot violations of minorities in his own backyard. A mob gheraoed Nankana Sahib Gurdwara, the birthplace of Sikhism’s founder Guru Nanak Dev, and pelted stones over the arrest of a few locals accused of abducting and converting a teenaged Sikh girl last September. What makes this significant is the fact that Khan, who has been curating the minority Sikh constituency to fuel Khalistan hawks against India, has been unable to protect them from genuine abuse and vandalism of their highest shrine on his home turf. The attack completely jeopardises his initiative on the Kartarpur corridor to link Indian Sikhs to the gurdwara. Most damaging for him, the hold-up of innocent pilgrims at the shrine has given grist to the Indian propaganda machinery about minority persecution in Pakistan and the need for the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) to rehabilitate them. The Modi Government doesn’t need to conduct awareness drives on CAA, the siege of Nankana Sahib has been convincing enough with Khan dim-wittedly becoming its spokesman.

Pakistan has had a dismal track record as far as the treatment of minorities living on its soil is concerned, be it of Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Khalsis, Shias and Ahmadiyya Muslims and even Indian Muslims who migrated to that country at the time of the Partition. Over the last two decades, the population of Sikhs in Pakistan has come down from 40,000 in 2002 to a dismal 8,000 in 2019. But driven by an anti-India design, it did try to placate Sikhs worldwide with the Kartarpur corridor and by reviving the centrality of Nankana Sahib. So the vandalism of angry protesters over the weekend was the proverbial spanner in the works. Not only have many Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) generals, including the former chief Hamid Gul, openly supported the Khalistan movement, several officers have also been acting as handlers and organisers of Sikh separatist activities in Canada, Europe, the US, the UK and Malaysia. Not surprisingly, several Khalistani extremists are being sheltered in Pakistan. In its zeal to foment trouble on Indian soil, the ISI has also been targetting and rewarding crime syndicates in Punjab that have expressed sympathies for the Khalistani movement on their social media platforms. In fact, shedding all pretensions, during the opening of the Kartarpur corridor, Pakistan’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had released a music video displaying posters of Khalistani separatist leaders in the background. But reports of forced conversions and the dwindling Sikh population in Pakistan have exposed Khan’s duplicity. Unable to drum up much support at the UNGA after the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, he now stands even more exposed and ridiculed. Hopefully, Sikhs across the world will see through Pakistan’s nefarious design for what it really is.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Compared to China, which is assertive and has undertaken innovative developments, India is definitively trailing. Preparation for any eventuality is the way forward to counter its rise

There is no doubt that 2019 has been a special year for China: Lavish events were organised to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). In 1949, from the rostrum of the Tiananmen Square, Chairman Mao had announced, “China has arisen.” On October 1, 2019, Chinese President Xi Jinping was on the same wavelength as his predecessor when he said, “No force can ever shake the status of China or stop the Chinese people and the nation from marching forward.” On that day, Beijing displayed several futuristic military gadgets.

On December 29, the Global Times listed China’s advanced weaponry. It said, “the year 2019” has been a “year of harvest” for China’s military equipment as the country showcased a “massive selection” of the latest, advanced and powerful weapons that operate on land, sea and air. It is not only in the field of advanced armaments that Beijing has been “doing well” but in this domain, the progress is indicative of an assertive China and of the innovative developments undertaken by Beijing. Comparatively, India is definitively trailing. Even though the communist party’s newspaper observed, “These displays of China’s new weapons showed transparency in the country’s military development” and sent a message to the world that China was determined to “safeguard sovereignty and peace,” the fact remains that China is still preparing itself.

Last week, in the Port of Dalian in Liaoning Province, China launched the country’s 23rd Type 052D and the sixth Type 055 destroyer. Experts said “the ship was one of the world’s largest and most powerful destroyers” and was capable of leading a high sea fleet or becoming the “pillar in an aircraft carrier battle group”, said the Global Times.

A few days earlier, China had officially commissioned its first domestically-built aircraft carrier, the Shandong. The CNN reported, “China has officially commissioned its first domestically-built aircraft carrier, the Shandong, a significant step forward in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ambitions for the country to field a world-class Navy.” Xi attended the commissioning ceremony in the southern province of Hainan where the carrier joined the Chinese Navy. In 2019, China launched the highest number of warships in the world: Nine destroyers, one comprehensive supply ship, one comprehensive landing ship, one amphibious assault ship, 12 light frigates with a total displacement of 200,000 tonnes, surpassing the US by far.

The Global Times quoted military experts as saying, “2019 will not be the end of China’s military equipment development. More weapons are expected in 2020 and beyond.” But there is another side to the coin. President Xi has been facing a rough sea at home. The fourth plenary session of the 19th Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee was held in Beijing from October 28 to 31. The members discussed the work report presented by Xi and adopted it “to uphold and improve the system of socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics and improve the party’s capacity for law-based governance and law-based exercising of state power.”

The communiqué mentions, the nation is facing “increasing challenges at home and abroad.” The gathering upheld the principle of “one country, two systems,” maintaining lasting prosperity and stability in Hong Kong and Macao, and “promoting the peaceful reunification of China.”

Despite the serious difficulties faced by China, India needs to be prepared to respond to its rise. But first, let’s talk about what India should not do. The two-day meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping at a resort in October in Mamallapuram was an occasion to talk about “civilisation.” But was it of any help?

As it is, during Nehruvian days, India was fond of this hazy concept. The dictionary thus defines the term as “an act or a process of civilising, as by bringing out of a savage, uneducated, or unrefined state, or of being civilised.” Already, in the 1950s, this great “idea” allowed the Indian leadership to “dream” of lofty principles such as peaceful co-existence, while China was quietly consolidating its presence on the Tibetan plateau and preparing for a war with India.

Today, India should look after its own interests and forget about vague idealistic concepts. It should learn from the Chinese leadership, which has always remained pragmatic and down-to-earth. Unfortunately, when India speaks about its past, it does so to avoid talking about the present. This is what may have happened between India and China during the two-day encounter at Mamallapuram. Though it is not known what went on for two-and-a-half hours during the one-to-one dinner composed of exotic Tamil dishes, very few concrete decisions seem to have been taken. The Indian foreign secretary affirmed that the “K” word was not pronounced. This is regrettable for the occasion was opportune to clarify the Indian position.

One positive outcome from the meeting was the decision to establish a high-level economic and trade dialogue mechanism “with the objective of achieving enhanced trade and commercial relations, as well as to better balance the trade between the two countries.” This can, hopefully, help rebalance the trade deficit — today in India’s disfavour.

An example of a positive pragmatic policy for India has been the creation of the post of Chief of Defence Staff (CDS). A day before the end of the year, the Government finally nominated Gen Bipin Rawat, outgoing Chief of Army Staff, as the first CDS “to drive the desperately-needed integration among the three services.”

But why did we have to wait for one day before the end of Gen Rawat’s tenure to see his name released? There was probably an intense lobbying from the babus to preserve their turf.  The history of modern India is a Mahabharata between the progressive forces, which want to change “eternal Bharat”, and the entrenched administration sticking to their privileges.

To win this battle would be the best way to counter China. As Rawat was handing over the baton to Gen MM Naravane, his successor, he was asked a question: Is the Army better prepared today to face the security challenges than when he took over? Gen Rawat replied, “Yes, we are better prepared.”

Preparation for any eventuality is the way forward to counter the rise of China. At the same time, India needs to continue investing in infrastructure, telecommunication systems, roads, airports and border areas while also providing a decent living and empowering frontier populations. In the future, Artificial Intelligence (AI), latest telecommunication means and new technologies should be indigenously developed if India does not want to be left behind. Only then will China respect India and will not be tempted to engage in an adventure like it did in 1962. This is a tough agenda for 2020.

(Writer: Claude Arpi; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

The Australian PM jetting off on a holiday reflects why the nation stalled a major climate pact in Madrid

The biggest hit of Australian rock band Midnight Oil was a song called Beds Are Burning. The band, which was leading a cry of environmentalism before other musicians jumped onto the bandwagon, is a hero among many climate activists today who have turned the song into an anthem. But even Midnight Oil, passionate spokespersons on how humanity is burning down its own home, could not have imagined what is going on in their own country. In case you have not heard, massive wildfires are devastating huge swathes of the country and are now even threatening Australia’s commercial hub of Sydney. A domestic T20 cricket match was cancelled thanks to the smog and haze, which has meant that Sydney, not Delhi or Beijing, has by far and away the worst air quality of any large metropolitan area in the world today. The fires have already devastated the wine country of South Australia outside Adelaide and killed several firefighters and residents. One of the nation’s most popular wildlife icons, the koala, is being considered by some to be “functionally extinct” after the trees that the tepid animal stays in have been burnt to the ground, and that is not even counting the countless other animals and birds that have been roasted alive. Australia’s Prime Minister Scott Morrison is also being roasted by his critics for ignoring the crisis and jetting off on holiday to Hawaii as his countrymen and women see their houses destroyed. He has, however, cut his trip short to respond to the crisis and spend time with the firefighters and victims. Such fires were predicted by many in Australia after the several years of drought that have ravaged the southern continent and left parched vegetation that only needed a spark. The nation is no stranger to wildfires as they have killed hundreds over the years, yet the devastation and spread of the fires of the southern summer of 2019 are unprecedented. One hopes that the authorities in that country use everything in their power to rein in the situation.

But these wildfires are just another sign of the climate emergency. Australia was criticised by many activists as one of the nations that stalled a major climate agreement at the recently concluded climate talks in Madrid. Its massive natural resources industry has led it to over three decades of unprecedented growth and would not want anything to risk that. However, Australia and other developed nations have to understand that they, like countries such as India, will be hit as the weather changes. Changes which will induce bigger and deadlier fires. For effective change for the future, the climate has to be front and centre on every nation’s mind.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

The United Kingdom will be called that for several years but this election has sounded its death knell. It was the votes of English nationalists that gave Johnson his victory and they don’t care if the UK survives or not. Just as well, because it won’t

Down on the turkey farm, the Scottish and Irish birds noticed that the smiling man in the festive costume was holding a hatchet behind his back, and hid. The Welsh turkeys looked confused and huddled together squawking. But the English turkeys marched bravely up to the chopping block, confident that this would be a Christmas to remember. Boris Johnson’s big victory in the recent election, which is popularly being called the “Brexit election” was achieved almost entirely, with English votes. Only 20 of the 364 seats won by the Conservative Party were in the other three “nations” of the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom (UK) will continue to be called that for several more years but this election has actually sounded its death knell. It was the votes of English nationalists that gave Prime Minister Johnson his victory, and they don’t really care if the UK survives or not. Just as well, because it won’t.

The English have been nationalists for around five centuries but they were also content to share a broader “British” identity so long as it gave them bragging rights on the world’s biggest empire. Once that was gone, a specifically English nationalism was bound to resurface eventually.

The resurgence of nationalism in Scotland and Wales was also inevitable and in Northern Ireland it had never gone away. All those nationalisms largely defined themselves by challenging the domination of the English majority (83 per cent) in the UK but  English nationalists obviously needed a bigger opponent to push against. They found it, inevitably, in the European Union (EU)

The EU is not very credible as an oppressor but it has been allotted that role by the Conservative Party and the Right-wing, billionaire-owned media that dominate the English scene. From “Take Back Control” to “Get Brexit Done”, the Conservatives’ slogans work in England, although they have almost no power in the other nations of the UK.

Three-fifths of Conservative Party members now believe that the break-up of the UK would be an acceptable price to pay for leaving the EU. A smaller majority would even accept the demise of their own party if that were the price of leaving. (The pollsters neglected to ask them if they were willing to sacrifice their first-born sons but presumably their answer would have been the same.)

This unhinged English nationalism will hasten the departure of Scotland from the UK. Scotland will leave to get away from the English crazies and to stay in the EU, its path to the latter goal made easier because in 2017 Spain withdrew its long-standing threat to veto Scottish membership of the EU.

A second and successful Scottish independence referendum is probably only two years away.

This election also revealed a majority for “Remain” in Northern Ireland and the shortest route to that goal would be via union with the Republic of Ireland (which remains an EU member).

That risks reigniting the troubles that ended 20 years ago but the Protestant loyalists have been betrayed and abandoned by Boris Johnson, so it might work. All the options are now dangerous and this one not necessarily more so than others. As for Wales, it will unenthusiastically stick with England. After 600 years of being governed from London — twice as long as the other non-English parts of the UK —  it has got used to it. Or at least lost the ability to imagine anything else.

And what about England’s future? It will formally leave the EU by the end of January but this is just the start of “Brexit Part-II”, the negotiation of a trade agreement with the EU. That would normally take many years but Boris Johnson swears that he will end the negotiation with or without a trade deal by the end of 2020.

Maybe he’s bluffing again: He didn’t die in a ditch the last time he promised to do so if he didn’t get a deal in time. Besides, crashing out without a deal would be catastrophic for the British economy: Half of all UK trade is with the EU. So many people think Johnson will make another sweetheart deal with the EU to save his skin, just like he did last October. Not necessarily. Johnson pretends to be an amiable, scatter-brained clown but he is actually a highly skilled political operator with close ties to hard-right British and American ideologues like Donald Trump. If he really shares their goal of opening the British economy up for asset-stripping, then crashing out is a way to achieve that goal.

On the other hand, Johnson is a man without fixed principles or ideology. His sole goal is the acquisition and retention of personal power and that might require him to pay attention to the interests of the disillusioned and deluded former Labour voters who gave him this victory. He may not dismantle the British Welfare State as far and as fast as his backers expect.

(Writer: Gwynne Dyer; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

The Russian President wants to effect changes in statutes to retain his role for life

With a global tilt towards authoritarian regimes, their leaders, be it in China, Turkey and Russia, demonstrate similar political logic of absolutism and are challenging the reforms phase of the 1990s. In this respect, there are undeniable comparisons between Chinese Premier Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Both count as being the most “powerful” yet “feared” leaders of the world. Both are territorial about extending their spheres of influence and have grown in stature not through an attempted coup but skilled political manoeuvering. So, Putin’s succession plans to amass Jinping-like powers by either amending his country’s Constitution or handing more powers to institutions — the Government, Parliament or a new body — and become a lifetime strongman weren’t surprising a bit. In fact, signs were visible earlier in 2008, when Putin skirted around the consecutive, two-term presidential limit by becoming the Prime Minister under the then President Dmitry Medvedev. The same year, the Russian Constitution was amended, which extended his presidential term from four to six years.

Undoubtedly, Russia under Putin’s leadership has gained in stature. From being a nation distraught by the fall of the Soviet Union, an empowered Russia under Putin has taken centrestage in world affairs. International manoeuvering in the form of political manipulation vis-a-vis the US, the wresting of Crimea from Ukraine and intervention in Syria have all strengthened the country’s image abroad. Domestically, however, there is a lot to be desired. The Russian economy is in a shambles. A growth forecast of 1.8 per cent for this year has stagnated at 1.3 per cent. The long-awaited rebound in living standards, too, hasn’t happened. The country largely remains dependent on oil and natural gas despite the availability of human resources and a wide range of natural wealth in abundance. To compound problems further, ever since the last decade, the country has seen a wave of protests. The most recent was the demand to let independent candidates run in the local elections. This in effect reveals a complete lack of faith in existing institutions. Citizens have become tired of the regime’s propaganda and are now raising their voices to restore a new wave of democratic changes. The challenges ahead are far too many but Putin has crafted a vacuum of succession so that he appears as the only deliverer. Nobody can dare challenge him.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Kathmandu may have a Government completing its full term in 2023 but Oli’s physical incapacity to be the Prime Minister will be the inflection point in Nepalese politics

Three events witnessed by me recently have come to dominate the political landscape in Nepal: A new power-sharing deal between ailing Prime Minister KP Oli and co-chairman of the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda; flare-up of the Kalapani territorial dispute between India and Nepal; and the holding of elections to 52 vacant posts in Kathmandu, the first political test after the NCP swept the three-tier polls in 2017-18. The most sensational development, however, was the obituary pasted over the much-touted gentleman’s agreement between Oli and Dahal. According to the latter, both had agreed to share prime ministership for two-and-half years each. On an official visit to New Delhi in 2018, Dahal had publicly affirmed the deal. Oli had then sought an explanation from Dahal.

Suddenly last month, Nepal woke up to President Bidhya Devi Bhandari brokering a new deal (which is no deal). According to it, Oli, while continuing to be the Prime Minister till termination of the present House, would elevate Dahal as the executive chairman of the party. The intended separation of office and power, however, could not be achieved. Oli told Kantipur Television twice in an interview: “Not only am I the other executive chairman but also senior to Dahal… we both will chair party meetings but I am the senior chair and he is the other chair.”

The power struggle has been resolved to Oli’s advantage with the former civil war time hero Prachanda conceding the battle, not the campaign. Oli has positioned the Damocles’ sword over Dahal for war-time excesses, which is to be investigated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Dahal’s confidant, Speaker KB Mahara, has landed in jail over an alleged case of rape. Grapevine suggests he was framed. Mahara has served as the Deputy Prime Minister three times and has been a Minister in every coalition Government, which Maoists had joined/formed. Prachanda is now an emperor without clothes whom Oli is able to bully as the junior but is an unyielding partner.

Kalapani catapulted into the headlines the moment India published its new map on November 2, following the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, that showed Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) as a part of the newly created Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir while Gilgit-Baltistan and Aksai Chin figured in the Union Territory of Ladakh. It also showed Kalapani and Susta, both unsettled disputes, as part of India, prompting Kathmandu to ask, “Why were they shown in India when they are disputed areas?” On December 13, Minister for Land Management and Cooperatives Padma Kumari Aryal said Nepal would release its own map, showing Limpiya Dhura as the source of Kali river. At the heart of the dispute is the origin of Kali river along the western boundary of Nepal. Nepal claims it originates in  Limpiya Dhura while India says it is at Kalapani, where it maintains a military post. Every few years, the Kalapani dispute is revived but this time Kathmandu won’t let it go. It is time to get real about the dispute, especially at a time when India’s popularity has been plummeting.

Oli carried out the much-awaited Cabinet reshuffle, which turned out to be a storm in a teacup. Though new Ministers were inducted, three senior and three junior Ministers were dropped. The evergreen Madhesi leader, Upendra Yadav of the Samajwadi Party Nepal (SPN, which has changed names more frequently than change in seasons), whose portfolio was changed from health to law and justice while he was in New Delhi attending a conference, made some noises but quietly accepted the alteration.

With 17 seats in the House, Yadav’s party has many talented leaders, including former Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai. This provides Oli the silver bullet of a two-third majority, with which, the Madhesis hope, he will alter the Constitution and meet their residual demands. India, too, has been pressing for the same for quite some time now. Prachanda is more amenable towards settling Madhesi grievances. The only real Madhesi party left is the Rastriya Janata Party (RJP), which in coalition with SPN and NCP, rules the only Madhesi Number 2 province. The tamed CK Raut is leading the fledgling Janmat Party, which espouses Ek Madhes Hamro Desh. The RJP has 16 lawmakers in Kathmandu and at one time, it was supporting the Government till it fell out as it kept dragging its feet on the second Constitutional amendment.

The recent by-elections to fill 52 vacant posts for different offices did not move the needle significantly in any one party’s favour except that the only federal seat contested was bagged by NCP in Pokhara. It also took 50 per cent of the lower level posts but Nepali Congress (NC) defeating NCP in three of its strongholds in Dharan, Chitwan and Bhaktapur was a feather in its cap. There is no big swing in voteshare either way. Both parties are introspecting even as they are internally divided. This is the first election the NCP has fought as a merged entity (UML and Maoist party); whereas in 2017-18 it contested elections separately. Unfortunately, the two new parties, Bibeksheel Party and Sajha Party, made an impressive showing but could not win any seat.

Kathmandu may, therefore, have a Government completing its full term on March 18, 2023. Oli’s health, a cause of concern, is the only contingency when leadership change can occur, which can happen any time soon. The successor Prime Minister will surely emerge from the NCP. The lawmaker numbers are stacked in favour of the Oli faction (121) against Prachanda Maoists (53) in a House of 275 members. The NCP’s general convention has not been held, nor have the two parties amalgamated at the grassroot level. As has happened before — though this time it’s less likely — Prachanda can jump ship if he is not offered the top job or at least the power-sharing deal is not  revived for the remaining three years in case of leadership change. Crossing the rubicon and re-joining NC will take the House tally to 116 (NC 63 and Maoists 53). With obliging hands from RJP (17) and SPN (16), the coalition will reach 150 lawmakers, crossing the halfway mark of 138. Oli fears Prachanda can dislodge him but he has said no power on earth can prevent the NCP from completing its full-term. Only Prachanda can change that. Oli’s physical incapacity to be the Prime Minister will be the inflection point in Nepalese politics.

Meanwhile, Kathmandu was momentarily rocked by former King Gyanendra’s impromptu jiving; twirling his jacket at the famous pub, Lord of Drinks, where he danced the night away with his family, applauded by an enamoured house. This single earthly act of his is unlikely to restore divine  monarchy. India’s Kalapani woes could grow given the mushrooming price of onions imported from here. Prices recorded a 318 per cent increase in three months. Lord Pashupatinath’s forecast for 2020 is a less stable Nepal.

(Writer: Ashok K Mehta; Courtesy: The Pioneer)

The recent development in neighbouring Pakistan, where a special court handed the death sentence to former President and Army General Pervez Musharraf, is unprecedented in the sense that it is the first time a civilian court has acted against the powerful military. A military that has cost India severely beyond the “bleeding cuts” of militancy to the Kargil war. Musharraf is the first military dictator who has been convicted for  “high treason.” Offences against him inter alia relate to gross violation of Article 6 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Events date back to 2007, when he had suspended the country’s Constitution and imposed Emergency. Ever since he was indicted for this crime in 2014, he has been in hiding mode, shuttling between his Dubai and London homes. Predictably enough, the Pakistan Army has come out strongly in his defence, arguing that he can “never be a traitor” and that “he served the country faithfully for over 40 years and fought wars for it.”

Whether Musharraf will be brought back or not is an intriguing question but what is sure is that this is not the end of the road for him. He has the support of the powerful Army, the Government and some other political parties, too, who have questioned the judiciary’s selective approach in singling him out while not bringing other dictators to justice. Besides, Musharraf can also opt to take the legal course and challenge the court’s ruling. This may as well lead to a lengthy judicial process where the courts, the Government and the Army can keep jostling to decide the fate of the ailing ex-General. With Pakistan already being a victim of a falling economy amid international pressures to come down hard on terrorism, the judiciary used it as a pretext to push back the Army. Perhaps, this assertion could also be because the Pakistani Army has in the last 10 years allowed civilian Governments to retain power while staying in the wings. It has not always been an easy relationship as legitimately elected governments were not only a threat to the military’s power and influence but also in conflict over key decisions, particularly with regard to India. The stage is now set for a showdown between the military and the judiciary because at no cost can the Army be seen as weak in a country where all other institutions are already defunct. That the wheels are already moving in that direction can be seen by the fact that the Government is studying the verdict. Though all legal recourse has not been exhausted as yet, the fact remains that for the present chief and the Army itself, death sentence to an ex-Army chief raises an existential question. And it should not come as a surprise if the Army hits back in the only way it knows.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

Whatever be the court order, whosoever the judge and however grave the culpability, mens rea and offenc eof General Pervez Musharraf, he cannot be hanged to death. Not in Pakistan

Let’s try and get into the psyche of the serving Army chief of Pakistan, nine Corps Commanders and the Director General (DG) of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), supposedly huddled in an “emergency meeting” following the special court’s verdict giving a death sentence to former Army chief and President, General Pervez Musharraf.

“Gentlemen, we meet today, at a critical time of our nation’s history, to take stock of the situation. As you are aware, a lower court has inflicted one of the most unjust, bad, illegal and mala fide verdicts against my predecessor General Pervez Musharraf. I am pained to state, and am sure you all agree with me, that anyone trying to mess with our brave and patriotic army in any form — its men, officers and General, serving or retired — will be dealt with sternly and in a befitting manner in proportion to his/her misadventure.”

“Indeed, today we will have to clearly understand that the so-called court verdict of a death sentence for General Sahib amounts to giving a death sentence to me.”

“If allowed to do what it is trying to do, this sham judiciary of our great country, founded by Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah, will see worse days in future. This court, despite having no right to do what it has done, has given a warning to each one of us present here. Today it is the former ailing chief. Tomorrow it will be the serving chief, followed by more men and officers down the line. God only knows where these judges are from and whose games they are playing? Where are they getting evil ideas and how are they making property disproportionate to their legal source of income?”

“Is the DG ISI here?” “Yes sir, here I am”, replied the DG ISI Faiz Hameed. The Army chief proceeded: “Put your boys on the job and make a list of all judges across the country who are anti-Army and anti-ISI. Make full dossiers and give them to me within six weeks, covering all aspects of their personal lives and professional deeds, misdeeds and links. These fellows think they know everything, but actually, they know nothing. Else, they wouldn’t dare challenge and humiliate the Army. By now they should have known that in Pakistan, the Army is the State and the State is the Army.”

“Pakistan was born after sacrifices were made by millions of our brothers. Their selflessness can never be allowed to be seen to be brushed aside by some anti-national, small-time judges in our midst. They will have to be uprooted. It’s because we are a nation of a martial race, which has never lost a war. We have been victorious everywhere, in every skirmish, battle and war, from the dawn of human civilisation; and there is no way that things are going to be any different in future.”

“These fake judges talk of ‘law’ without an iota of idea on evolution thereof. They don’t even know that law and history are written and created by victors.”

“We Pakistanis, being born victorious, created our law through the power of the sword. Our predecessor Babar had only 12,000 soldiers and yet he destroyed the mighty enemy Ibrahim Lodi, which was ten times superior, on April 21, 1526, in the field of Panipat. That’s our heritage. Hence that’s our honour, strength, power, reputation.”

“Under no circumstances, therefore, will we allow this band of ignorant and irresponsible civilians, in the garb of all-knowing legal tool, to curb and crush the fighters of our land. The judiciary must be re-educated about the achievements of our Army. Thus, when the first civilian Prime Minister Liaquat Ali on March 9, 1951, alleged conspiracy by Major-General Akbar Khan and others to overthrow the Government, he was assassinated on October 16, 1952.”

“That our civilians leaders have always been corrupt and anti-Army, came to fore again when Benazir Bhutto, in her second term as Prime Minister, needlessly uncovered a false and fabricated conspiracy case against Major-General Zaheer-ul-Islam Abbasi in September 1994 and convicted him thereby maligning the best and the most dedicated uniformed people of the State.”

“It’s a matter of shame that even a Punjabi civilian Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif took the Army head-on in 1999 when General Musharraf’s plane was on a return journey from Sri Lanka and he wasn’t allowed under direct orders of Sharif to land in Pakistan. Not only that, the Prime Minister by appointing Lieutenant-General Ziauddin as new Army Chief instantly, tried to irreparably divide us. Fortunately, however, when Sahib was still in the air, in search of a landing space, Lieutenant-Generals Mahmud Ahmed and Aziz Khan launched a coup to remove Sharif from power to steer a clear path for Pervez Sahib to suspend Nawaz, and rightly suspend the Constitution, to take over as chief executive of Pakistan.”

That’s the only reality of the Army-civilian tradition of Pakistan in the words of the Army chief despite it being an imaginary scenario building enterprise. The situation follows the same pattern even today, the apparent supremacy and superiority of civilian Imran Khan as head of Government notwithstanding. The Army of Pakistan is used to a certain power and position and there’s little to suggest that the strategic wand of the State would be wielded by anyone other than the incumbent Army chief. Hence, whatever be the court order, whosoever the judge, and however grave the culpability, mens rea and offence of Musharraf, he cannot be hanged to death. Not in Pakistan. Any civilian, trying to push further, will face fatality. If at all, only the Army can punish an Army official. One needs to carefully go through the Pakistan Army Act, 1952. If Musharraf is hanged, it would amount to a death knell for/of the Pakistani Army.

This is worse humiliation than the surrender of the entire East Pakistani Army to victorious Indian Field Marshal Manekshaw’s men on Friday, December 16, 1971, in Dhaka’s Ramana Maidan.

(Writer: Abhijit Bhattacharyya; Courtesy: The Pioneer)