The ‘Paris Attack’ has come at a very interesting
time. Some of the international games are changing as the world’s strategic
atmosphere seems to be in a flux. There is open talk about the ‘great American failure’
in the decade long war against the terror menace while a neo-assertive Russian
President Putin seems to be the new flavor of the season.
Russia has
experienced a drastic loss of soft power in recent years but everyone still seems
to believe Moscow more than Washington when it comes to fighting terrorism.
The
debate is – how serious is the threat of terrorism – especially unleashed by the
Islamic forces – and whether the threat is compelling enough to inspire a
global response.
Russian military crew with SU-34 jet fighter |
In five or 10 years’ time you would
be certainly reading another blog piece or even a book – from experts – much like
this one but written in a more lucid manner. The only difference will be that
hundreds if not thousands more would die by then.
Thus November 2015 after bravado
again similar to 2001, the Americans have developed some kind of cold feet
about the neo-global war on terrorism. It remains to be examined very closely
now whether the US dilemma is only guided by its realization that the global
jihad is driven by a vicious, fascist ideology that can cause terrible
suffering or that they do not want Putin to steal the credit.
Post 9/11 it was trendy to speak
about Islamo-fascism. Then it was moved to Global War on terrorism and
subsequently re-branded as Great War for Democracy. But none could miss the
point that those shifts were favourable to the United States. The monopoly on intellectual rights
was exploited to the hilt. Thus while 9/11 called for Globar War and bombing of
Afghanistan, after 26/11 in Mumbai, the Indian government was advised to apply
restraints.
Real Shake-Hands Time |
Double standards is a small word.
The American experts are again
throwing up statistics to camouflage the world war against terror saying hardly
7 per cent of violent deaths globally are a
result of acts of terrorism.
Compared to the 32,727 terrorist fatalities, there
have been about 377,000 casualties collectively, in interpersonal violence,
gang violence, or economically motivated crimes – but not terrorism as the world understands, says the US.
But Russia under Putin wants to
act against terror. In fact, it is believed Putin has multiple goals as he wants to capture
the world relevance for his country as was the legacy of cold war days.
From an
Indian point of view, Russia is an important global partner. The Russian relations
with India have always been and will be one of the most important foreign
policy priorities probably for both the countries. The rapport established
between Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been good. This
sums up the importance attached by Moscow towards New Delhi over the years ---
both during the erstwhile Soviet Union days and later since the split – and
also the importance attached by India towards Russia. But having said that the
entire ‘global war’ against terrorism – now namely Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria (ISIS) – is must, it is also crucial to examine Russia’s real intent of
the future.
It ought to be remembered
that despite befriending India and despite its commitment to fight terror,
Russia has lately sought friendship or rather military partnership with
Pakistan too.
On November 19, 2015 days after Paris Attack, both
Pakistan and Russia sprang a minor surprise when they inched closer. To start with,
Nawaz Sharif happily called that both Russia and Pakistan were entering into
"a new phase of strong relationship" by working out landmark defence
agreement.
It will commence on the sale of attack helicopters. The two
countries shared a thorny relationship during the cold war and had only worsened
with Soviet Union's entry in Afghanistan in 1980s.
An enthusiastic Nawaz Sharif has tried to go all
gaga about his friendship with Russian leadership and asserted that his country
has taken a firm stance on terrorism and extremism to ensure a peaceful, stable
and investor friendly environment and terrorists' hideouts and infrastructure
has been dismantled.
India may not be convinced. Even the US has spoken about 'snakes' in the backyards of Pakistan.
All these need not be very important.
Importantly however, Moscow seems to buy that line as Russian
delegation led by Victor P Ivanov, Co-Chairman of the Russian-Pakistani
Intergovernmental Commission on Economic, Trade and Scientific Cooperation, has
said that there exists a huge potential for ‘mutual’ trade between Russia and
Pakistan.
Not long ago, Russia had assured India that it would
not do any military cooperation with Pakistan. But why these changes? What do these actually imply?
In the past, Russia had ignored Pakistan, albeit
deliberately, for decades in its arms sales because of Islamabad’s clear tilt towards
the US. Moscow also realized that the terrorism menace spreading from tacit
support from Pakistan and open revolt in Afghanistan could possibly create
future tensions in Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and rest of Central Asia.
So where do we come? Is Russia like the US in the
past too embarking on a journey for a war against terrorism/Jihad based on a
false prospectus?
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government needs to
study this in details. Not long ago even western powers believed, the Russian
intervention in Syria would be a geo-strategic disaster for the United States.
It is understood that Russian intervention will help
Moscow as also Tehran.
Iran, the Shia face of Islamic radicalism, will get
weapons it perhaps need desperately to fight Americans’ and protect its nuke
programme. Russia will gain a permanent foothold in the Middle East and a new
coalition to counter the US influence. Will this also diminish India’s quest
for more relevance in global power play?
(ends)
I strongly agree that with Russian intervention in Syria would be a geo-strategic disaster for the United States, it may weaken the network of the US (through terrorists), spread over Islamic states and would effect the earning of revenue & power game. With the presence of Russia at Syria, US can't continue its operations around and at the same time, will not allow turkey for any offensive or defensive strikes. Whereas Russia may not withdraw its defense from Syria and wait for a NATO action, so that Russia can prove its defense system is more powerful than US.
ReplyDeletethanks SudhirDJain for yr comments.
ReplyDelete