jeypore
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 2,885
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Manipal, India One of the principal reasons that the United States so often fails to transform its advantages into lasting geopolitical support is the way specialists there succeed in shifting the direction of policy into trails that increase their own relevance.
An example is the view floated by the United States that there is a "Greater Middle East, which in some recitals even includes India, and that this amorphous entity needs to be looked at as a single entity. Such a view of disparate situations through a single lens has been responsible for numerous policy errors, many of which have radicalized rather than modernized parts of the globe that are of considerable significance to international interests.
The populations in the Middle East have distinct civil and political trajectories that are different in chemistry from countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and India, although the latter three join the Middle East as indeed do parts of Europe and North America -- in hosting groups that form part of global terror networks.
Since the jihadization of Pakistan's society began under former President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the 1970s and continued under successive governments, the country has overtaken locations in the Middle East to become the principal gene pool for jihadists.
The Pakistan army's obsession with India has resulted in the institution training thousands of "resistance fighters" who seamlessly switch targets, and who have set up terrorist training schools of their own across the globe. Although former president of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf convinced his U.S. interlocutors that he was committed to de-jihadizing the Pakistan army, the reality is that today, at least four serving corps commanders subscribe to this militant ideology, although each claims that its use will be specific to India.
Army-backed jihadist networks have become a potent force in the urban areas of Pakistan and it may take a civil war to eliminate them. There is indeed such a war raging within Pakistan, but that is not civil society versus the jihadists, it is intra-jihadi battles. Due to the support given to them by the military, the jihadists are immune from any civilian efforts to dilute their hold.
Indeed, the "civilian" component in Pakistans administration is hardly civil with the ministries of defense, foreign affairs and the interior reporting directly to the army chief, as is also the case with Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani. This has left President Asif Ali Zardari with little power except over his household staff many of whom have by now been "persuaded" to work for military intelligence.
Pakistan represents the "clear and present danger" to international security that the Bush administration has not been able to neutralize and needs to be dealt with in isolation from other theaters.
Lumping Pakistan together with countries in the Middle East blurs the unique situation there, including the countrys China-supplied nuclear and missile capabilities. The partnership of the Pakistan army with the Peoples Liberation Army of China goes beyond routine military exchanges into programs of "asymmetric warfare," as well as links the trade in controlled substances across borders.
Unlike Pakistan, countries in the Middle East, including Iran and Syria, do not have a lethal partner like China. The China-Pakistan partnership has flourished since the 1970s, when sensitive weapons systems began to flow into Pakistan, which has made the neutering of India its only priority.
India is not part of the Greater Middle East, nor does it as yet have much in common with Pakistan or Bangladesh, two countries dominated by armies that see jihad as a valid instrument of warfare. However, Indias prospering English-speaking middle class has made it a prospective partner with the West together with Israel, Turkey and Singapore. These Asian countries collectively form what may be termed the "Greater West, a construct based not on race or ethnic origin but on the values of culture and approach to human issues, including a commitment to democracy and secularism.
Hopefully, the European Union will begin to distance itself from the German-driven effort to install ethnicity as the core of the union the skin rather than the mind.
If India becomes a part of the Greater Middle East, then it would spell trouble for the world. India needs to transform its society and fend off dangers such as radicalization so that the country can form part of a Greater West, linked by a common commitment to a moderate, inclusive and knowledge-driven society. All of that can then form a firewall to protect India and other states from a conflagration, lit not only by fanaticism but also by the policy errors of those who believe themselves immune from the effects of playing with fire.
--
(Professor M.D. Nalapat is vice-chair of the Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair, and professor of geopolitics at Manipal University.He can be reached at mdnalapat1@gmail.com. ©Copyright M.D. Nalapat.)
India as part of the "Greater West" - upiasia.com
An example is the view floated by the United States that there is a "Greater Middle East, which in some recitals even includes India, and that this amorphous entity needs to be looked at as a single entity. Such a view of disparate situations through a single lens has been responsible for numerous policy errors, many of which have radicalized rather than modernized parts of the globe that are of considerable significance to international interests.
The populations in the Middle East have distinct civil and political trajectories that are different in chemistry from countries such as Pakistan, Afghanistan and India, although the latter three join the Middle East as indeed do parts of Europe and North America -- in hosting groups that form part of global terror networks.
Since the jihadization of Pakistan's society began under former President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the 1970s and continued under successive governments, the country has overtaken locations in the Middle East to become the principal gene pool for jihadists.
The Pakistan army's obsession with India has resulted in the institution training thousands of "resistance fighters" who seamlessly switch targets, and who have set up terrorist training schools of their own across the globe. Although former president of Pakistan Pervez Musharraf convinced his U.S. interlocutors that he was committed to de-jihadizing the Pakistan army, the reality is that today, at least four serving corps commanders subscribe to this militant ideology, although each claims that its use will be specific to India.
Army-backed jihadist networks have become a potent force in the urban areas of Pakistan and it may take a civil war to eliminate them. There is indeed such a war raging within Pakistan, but that is not civil society versus the jihadists, it is intra-jihadi battles. Due to the support given to them by the military, the jihadists are immune from any civilian efforts to dilute their hold.
Indeed, the "civilian" component in Pakistans administration is hardly civil with the ministries of defense, foreign affairs and the interior reporting directly to the army chief, as is also the case with Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani. This has left President Asif Ali Zardari with little power except over his household staff many of whom have by now been "persuaded" to work for military intelligence.
Pakistan represents the "clear and present danger" to international security that the Bush administration has not been able to neutralize and needs to be dealt with in isolation from other theaters.
Lumping Pakistan together with countries in the Middle East blurs the unique situation there, including the countrys China-supplied nuclear and missile capabilities. The partnership of the Pakistan army with the Peoples Liberation Army of China goes beyond routine military exchanges into programs of "asymmetric warfare," as well as links the trade in controlled substances across borders.
Unlike Pakistan, countries in the Middle East, including Iran and Syria, do not have a lethal partner like China. The China-Pakistan partnership has flourished since the 1970s, when sensitive weapons systems began to flow into Pakistan, which has made the neutering of India its only priority.
India is not part of the Greater Middle East, nor does it as yet have much in common with Pakistan or Bangladesh, two countries dominated by armies that see jihad as a valid instrument of warfare. However, Indias prospering English-speaking middle class has made it a prospective partner with the West together with Israel, Turkey and Singapore. These Asian countries collectively form what may be termed the "Greater West, a construct based not on race or ethnic origin but on the values of culture and approach to human issues, including a commitment to democracy and secularism.
Hopefully, the European Union will begin to distance itself from the German-driven effort to install ethnicity as the core of the union the skin rather than the mind.
If India becomes a part of the Greater Middle East, then it would spell trouble for the world. India needs to transform its society and fend off dangers such as radicalization so that the country can form part of a Greater West, linked by a common commitment to a moderate, inclusive and knowledge-driven society. All of that can then form a firewall to protect India and other states from a conflagration, lit not only by fanaticism but also by the policy errors of those who believe themselves immune from the effects of playing with fire.
--
(Professor M.D. Nalapat is vice-chair of the Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair, and professor of geopolitics at Manipal University.He can be reached at mdnalapat1@gmail.com. ©Copyright M.D. Nalapat.)
India as part of the "Greater West" - upiasia.com
