Tibetan Trouble - What India should do

Protests have erupted around the world against the ‘occupation’ of Tibet by China including in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa, where anywhere from 30 to a 100 protestors have been killed by Chinese forces. This year marks the 49th year of Chinese occupation of Tibet, which is currently designated as an ‘autonomous region’ of China. India, due to geographical proximity and as host to the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, has always been seen as a player in the ongoing struggle between the exiled Tibetan authority and the Chinese government. This latest flare up is seen as the most severe in decades and will certainly see the pressure on China increase. As the exiled home of the Dalai Lama, there is increased domestic and international pressure on India to take a more proactive role on the issue that has now snowballed into a major crisis for China.

The media coverage and user generated content on the internet has given a graphic visual on what exactly is going on in the ‘roof of the world’. Armored vehicles and heavily armed Chinese army and security forces conducting door to door checks are reminiscent of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 where hundreds, some say even thousands of activists, students and labor union groups were killed, the memories of which have become hardwired into Chinese history. China has for long laid claim on Tibet and has considered the region as integral to Chinese territory. However, the indigenous Tibetans see themselves as a separate genealogy from the Han Chinese that forms most of Chinese population. The Tibetans consider the Dalai Lama as their spiritual head and he along with thousands of Tibetans were forced into exile in 1959 after the Chinese invaded and ‘reclaimed’ Tibet. Then Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru, offered moral and political support for the Dalai Lama and ever since he has set-up bases at Dharamshala and McCleodganj in Himachal Pradesh. The Tibetan community have periodically raised there voice on the occupation of Tibet and their message has been accentuated through Hollywood movie stars and western politicians that have raised the stature of the Tibetan struggle to an international level and appeal. However, pragmatic politics from India has ensured that in order to settle the decades long Indo-China border dispute a quid pro quo now exists where in, we recognize Tibet as an “autonomous yet integral region of China” while the Chinese recognize Arunachal Pradesh as an integral part of India. It is another thing that the Chinese have not lived up to their side of this understanding; nevertheless, we have maintained our side of this tacit understanding. With the Tibetan crisis now brewing India has taken a moderate approach on the crackdown. Much like our nuanced reaction to the violent crackdown by monks in Myanmar, India is wary of not wanting to be seen as muddling in China’s internal affairs.

Whatever be the merits of a hands off approach on the Tibet issue, there is no denying the fact that India will be a stakeholder in the outcome of any move to find a solution to the Tibet issue. India must accept that though, Tibet is an integral and autonomous part of China, the protests and uprisings by Tibetans in India is an issue of concern. The proposed march by Tibetans and monks to Lhasa could lead to a dramatic showdown if the marching troop reaches the Indo-Tibetan border and presses to cross the Line of Actual Control. India must come out strongly in support of the Dalai Lama and his claim that China is indulging in ‘cultural genocide’ in Tibet. The world over countries that have offered asylum to refugee populations either ensure that the migrants ultimately return to their homeland or offer open support for their plight. Palestinian refugees that had to flee the Palestinian territories in the aftermath of the 1967 war were given asylum in Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, all countries that recognize the need for a Palestinian state and fully support their right to return in any solution that comes out the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. A similar offer has to be professed by India, as we do offer asylum to the Tibetan community on Indian soil. While we remain gracious hosts, our opinion on the issue of a free Tibet has slowly waned to accept the Chinese stand on the issue. The cordial relations we share with China may get strained if we do take a strong approach vis-à-vis Tibet, but then this is a step that we must take for the Tibetan community that accepts as much from the Indian government. The other alternative mentioned is direct face to face talks between the Dalai Lama and the Chinese authorities, an idea which remains fanciful given China’s rigidity on the issue.

The Tibet issue is bound to remain in the headlines given the scrutiny the world has thrown on every aspect of Chinese existence. From levels of pollution, to dealing with dictators in Africa, to poisoned toys being exported, the lack of free speech and media and their crackdown on religious freedoms are all issues that have gained increased space in the public domain in the past year. The Chinese have been quick to dismiss all such claims as Western propaganda and biased international press coverage. The Olympics in August this year will only ensure that the Chinese have to adopt a twin pronged approach. On the one hand they would want to welcome the world and the international press to showcase the economic might that China has become, with its fantastic stadiums and breathtaking architecture and infrastructure while at the same time black out questions on the freedom of speech and religious freedoms in the country. Given this dilemma the Chinese will find questions on Tibet even tougher to answer. China will have to realize that globalization and the fruits that come with it, have also an important caveat. The more one opens to the world the more the world will scrutinize your systems. The dissent that China sees is the result of that sobering lesson that globalization has to offer.

Russian Elections: Putin's Marketing Ploy

Russia has elected, some say selected, a new president to take over from incumbent Vladimir Putin. Dmitry Medvedev, a long term ally of Putin and first deputy prime minister under him, will take the reins in May after a landslide victory in the March 2nd polls. As predicted, the candidate that enjoyed the backing of Putin found it easy to take the country’s top job, in elections that the West has cast doubts on counts of fairness. The objections of the West aside, analysts feel that these elections will not dramatically alter the power structure in Russia, with Putin slated to become Medvedev’s prime minister in May. Medvedev himself, in his victory speech, pledged to carry forward the path shown by Putin, who enjoys a larger than life status in Russia. Putin, with the help of the United Russia party will be easily installed as prime minister and in all likelihood still decide policy and direction for his country. In so far as relations with the West may be concerned the reaction from Western countries has been mixed. While the Germans, French and European Commission have welcomed the new president, hoping to solidify their relations with a rising former superpower, the United States has not overtly congratulated the president elect and has voiced concerns over the state of democracy in Russia.

Putin has described his country’s version of governance as a ‘managed democracy’. A strong executive in the shape of a president that controls the government and its various arms and where free enterprise is allowed to flourish as long as they remain loyal to ‘national interests’. This understanding of democracy has led many to believe that Putin is a direct throwback to the Communist era where dissent is not an option and where a fair electoral system is present only on paper. Putin has argued consistently that the turmoil his country has witnessed after the break up of the USSR required a tough approach to get the country back on track. And he has numbers to back him. Russia is today the world’s eighth largest economy and its economic upturn has ensured a rising middle class. While the economic boom has got with it rising costs and inflation, Russians do claim to have regained a sense of pride in their country steadily climbing back to its erstwhile status of a superpower to match the United States and other European big wigs. Coupled with the massive reserves of natural gas and hydrocarbon reserves that the country holds on to, the Russia of old seems to back. This rise of Russia has left many in West worried. This worry materialized when Russia played up its gas diplomacy to the hilt in the last two years by stopping gas supplies to Georgia and Ukraine, both formerly in Russia’s sphere of influence but seen as moving closer to the West and the European Union. Russia asked for a fair price for its gas and signaled to the West that Russia’s natural wealth will no longer be ‘exploited’ by the West. These strong arm tactics were carried by Gazprom, the Russian hydrocarbon’s giant that is under the direct control of Russian government and by that extension under Putin. Interestingly, president elect Medvedev has been the chairman of Gazprom and European governments would therefore be familiar with the man.

The United States and Russia also share a tenuous relationship. What started off as bonhomie between George Bush and Vladimir Putin, both men were elected in 2000, soon turned sour over Russia’s role in crushing the separatists movement in Chechnya and failing to toe the American line. The independent minded Putin further crossed hairs with the West by curbing down heavily on free speech and on the oligarchs, the select group of Russia’s richest men who made billions in sell of state property after the fall of the Soviet Union under Boris Yeltsin. Yukos owner, Mikhail Khordokovsky’s case was highly reported in the United States. The West saw this as Putin’s attempts to curb a man who wanted to be Russia’s president. Yukos, the billion dollar oil and gas firm was nationalized and sold to Gazprom and Khordokosky was sent to a Siberian prison for a decade. Putin, in the face of the West’s disapproval showed to the world what the definition of a ‘managed democracy’ actually is. More recently, Russia and the United States squared off over the US’ plans of setting up military bases and missile silos in Poland and Georgia, which met with strong disapproval by the Russians. Last month, when Kosovo declared independence, the US sided with the Kosovars while the Russians backed the Serbs. Taking opposing views, keeping in mind respective national interests, be it on Iran or on issues in the UN, has become the norm between the two countries, thereby further straining relations.

With his second term ending this year, and a third not possible under the Russian constitution, Putin began the hunt for his successor. Amongst the many names that came up, Medvedev’s candidature best suited Putin. An old hand from Putin’s native St. Petersburg, Medvedev is a known loyalist and a moderate. Putin’s selection for his successor seems to be two fold. He chose a loyalist to ensure that he continues to call the shots as the prime minister, and it is entirely possible that Medvedev is keeping the seat warm for Putin to return as president in 2012. Also, he has chosen the 42 year old lawyer with no secret service experience so as to ensure that he does not create an alternate power base inside the Kremlin. The old guard of the former KGB and the present FSB secret service will remain loyal to Putin, from whom he derives maximum power. This will ensure that Medvedev remains reigned in. Putin will not make the mistake of his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, who chose Putin as his successor imagining the ex-spy to be a puppet under him. Putin managed to get the security and military establishment to back him and ultimately became the new power centre in Russian politics. Second, in choosing Medvedev Putin has also sent a signal to the West that he has installed a more moderate and liberal figure as president to perhaps begin some sort of rehabilitation of ties between Russia and the West. The new face of Russia is young, moderate and in keeping with the times. This while the real power continues to be Putin, albeit behind the scenes. It seems that Medvedev will act as the perfect marketing tool for Putin, whom the West found impossible to deal with. In light of this Putin may have created the perfect smokescreen for the West. Medvedev, at 42, marks a generational shift from the Communist days and his love for liberal talk and Deep Purple may just win him brownie points in popularity in the West. This while Putin can get on with the job of running his country.

Chinese Checkered - The Perils of Globalization

China in the past two decades has shown a pace of development that is unmatched by any another country in the world. Its products and economy have affected every citizen on the planet and big corporate houses have been seeking ways to engage and reap benefits out a country that is growing at 10% year on year. The Chinese are the proud builders of the Three Gorges Dam, the biggest man made engineering feat in the world. There are fantastic stories on how the Chinese have removed 150 million citizens out of poverty and the prospect of a successful Olympics in 2008 will further boost China’s global standing as a giant in every sense of the word. The prosperity, economic growth and sheer dominance of the manufacturing sector are the bright spots on a country which is still plagued with questions on human rights, individual freedom, freedom of press, health and product safety and most importantly the realness of the democracy that exists in the country.

Call it what you will but the open arms policy that was started two decades ago has also raised some important issues that the Chinese must provide answers for. Couple of weeks ago two widely read and respected weekly news magazines Time and Newsweek carried stories about the safety of Chinese products and also about how food products were manufactured in Chinese factories using substandard and in some cases potentially poisonous substances which reduced cost and therefore not only increased profits but also harm to the consumer. Pet food products were found with illegal substances as were food products that have flooded the West and most of the world. There are newer allegations of the safety of non-consumable products like children’s toys and other synthetic materials as a fall out of the food product scandal. China on its part displayed quick steadfastness and threw the chief of its food product regulatory agencies to the gallows on corruption charges. This action did not however fully satisfy the millions of consumers who are wondering what their options are in a market that is flooded with products from China. Proponents of China have also argued that most Chinese products are safe and a track record of the past two decades proves their safety and fitness for use. They further argue that since the West is facing the belligerent manufacturing might of the Chinese, at the cost of their domestic manufacturing industry, Western governments and media have embarked on a hyper critical campaign in order to reduce their country’s dependence on Chinese products. The allegations and counter allegations aside, for the moment it is the mainstream media that has ensured that “label reading” has become a fashionable and important way of checking out where a product has originated from.

Globalization and the internet age have also thrown up questions about the nature of democracy and individual rights that exist in the country. China, though still officially Communist, does allow local elections and has followed the famous “one nation two systems” vis-à-vis its relations with Hong Kong. The Tiananmen Square protests proved to be a litmus test for democratic reforms in the country, an incident that lead to the deaths of hundreds of students demanding democracy at the hands of the Communist regime. Chinese governments since the incident in 1989 have tried to shake off the far reaching questions that Tiananmen Square has asked of the Chinese. There continue to remain lingering doubts about how serious China really is about keeping pace with democratic reforms or whether the Chinese want to reap the economic benefits of globalization without compromising their grip over power by ushering in democratic reforms. India has been one of the beacons of democracy in the world and the growth of India with democracy has always been compared with the growth in China sans democracy. We in India are quick to make statements to the effect that democracy is the reason why our country has not progressed well enough and also as to why corruption remains rampant in the country. We like to compare ourselves against military regimes and to Communist China where the iron-grip approach has reaped benefits for its citizens. What we are quick to forget is that authoritarianism, while attractive in short term for the quick benefits it brings, is doomed for failure in the long term prospects of any nation. Most nations that have flirted with authoritarian regimes and dogmas have only given it up to pursue the more stable form of governance – democracy. And sooner or later, the Chinese will need to do the same if it wants its citizens to grow and meaningfully contribute to the growth of their country. Then again, the Chinese model could well be used as an example where authoritarianism with kid gloves has bided well for a country of China’s size.

The Chinese currency has also been cited as being undervalued as compared to the Dollar and the Euro and this is also a reason for Chinese and American financial mandarins to lock horns over the unfairness of the Chinese approach to the global currency market. The West is also concerned over the investments China is making in Africa in return for an assured fuel supply from the energy rich though economically stumbling African nations. This reverse neo-imperialism is again under the Western media’s scanner who are blaming China for cutting deals with despots for the sake of fuelling its own economy, never mind the fact that till barely sixty years ago, the West was doing the very same thing it is now accusing China of. That aside there is no doubt that at a certain level by McDonaldising its nation, the country has also opened itself up to some tough questions, questions that China would prefer not to answer. But globalization is an all or none phenomenon. While some companies maybe willing to overlook the Chinese disregard for democracy and food safety for the billions of Yuan’s in return, it is not long before a serious backlash and lack of credibility may hit the Chinese economy if China does not open up – and not just in words but by quantifiable meaningful actions.

Benchmarking Iraq - When will the Iraqis stand up?

The Iraq war took centre stage in American politics with President George Bush not wavering on his administrations current Iraq policy, while at the same time giving his commander in Iraq, David Petraeus time till September to come up with his assessment of the failure or success of the troop surge that was initiated in February of this year. The critics of the current policy has now included prominent Republicans from Bush’s party with long time ally Senator John Warner coming up with an alternate bill for a troop pullout. Some Republicans are also now calling for a troop redeployment, read troop reduction, by April 2008. The US Congress had earlier passed an appropriation bill to fund the troops based on 18 benchmarks that the Iraqi government should achieve in order to enjoy further support of the US army in Iraq. In plain terms, it was a clear indication to the Iraqi government to achieve political breakthroughs in a war where the solution is increasingly not military but political. Most commentators have kept arguing on the failed opportunities and tactics of the White House while ignoring the lack of political resolve shown by the Iraqi parliament. That the decision to invade Iraq was detrimental to US strategic interests is yesterday’s news, it is paramount that a solution is now reached rather than harping on failed policies of the Bush administration. While criticizing the Bush administration is the fashionable thing to do, it is important for the sake of Iraqis who are suffering that a political solution is trashed out and the gradual troop reduction initiated in the coming eighteen months.

The eighteen benchmarks that the US Congress had set of the Iraqis have seen a limited success rate. Bush recognized that of the eighteen benchmarks, eight had been achieved; eight had not been met with while two remained in progress. The Iraqis were to have achieved success or partial success on all eighteen items by the time General Petraeus addressed the Senate in September. So with three months to go till September, the onus lies on the Iraqi parliament and government to meet the remaining requirements of the bill. The reaction of the Iraqi politicians to these benchmarks has been disappointing. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki has stated that the Iraqis have done their bit and that if the American forces were to leave the Iraqi security forces could step up to the plate and secure their country. While the statement might seem far fetched, but in terms of Iraqi politics one can see why he made such a comment. Not wanting to seem cowering to American demands, Maliki wanted to address his domestic audience that he was no American stooge and that the Iraqis were capable of defending themselves. But Maliki’s statement belies that fact that most Iraqi politicians agree upon - that a precipitous withdrawal of American troops is untenable. Further contrary to Maliki’s claims, the Iraqi security forces have not provided the American led Multi National Forces with the required three brigades as part of the Baghdad Security Plan (the formal name for the US troop surge). Infact, the Iraqi parliament instead of heading towards political reconciliation has now taken a summer recess which may last till mid August, thereby, giving it very little time to actually achieve more targets laid down by the Americans. It would be unimaginable for any Parliament in the world to even think of a recess if their country were in facing a threat to its very existence. The lack of steadfastness on parts of the Iraqi politicians will go down as a greater tragedy than the invasion itself. The Iraqi parliament needs to discuss, debate and reach consensus on key policy decisions which include a review of the new Iraqi constitution, disarming of militias, policy on oil distribution and the setting up of semi-autonomous states within Iraq. All these issues are highly contentious and need deft political and diplomatic handling to achieve any breakthroughs. The more the world concentrates on the failed US policies – both diplomatic and military the more the Iraqi politicians find reason to shirk from their duties. It would do great disservice to claim that the Iraqi parliament and parliamentarians have not achieved anything since the war began. Their devotion to the cause of a free Iraq lies in the fact that they have a constitution in place and have held a referendum on it. Many Iraqi politicians and ministers have lost family members to the sectarian violence, so the insurgency has hit most Iraqi parliamentarians. Further, commendably, they have held nation wide elections which saw a large number of voters casting their ballots. However, the onus remains on them for they cannot falter at this crucial stage in their country’s history. Any failure on the part of Iraqis will give the White House and the remnants of the neo-conservative movement ammunition to charge that the Americans sacrificed their soldiers and failed because the Iraqis could not present a unifying voice.

The time has come for Iraqi politicians to set an example for the rest of the Middle East that it is possible for diverse ethnic groups to unite as a single nation. The thousands of years of violence between the Shias and Sunnis cannot end in a matter of years or over a cup of Arabian brew. However, for the sake of reinvigorating the lost Arab nationalism of the seventies and eighties it is important for the Iraqis to now stand up. For the risk of not doing so will vilify them for generations to come. The West will take this as an example where they tried to spread democracy and freedom in the Middle East only to be scuttled by in fighting and radicalism. The future Arab generations will wonder why their predecessors did not take the opportunity to change Arab history and instead preferred to maintain status quo. For all the appreciable sacrifices aside the hand of history wants to be held. It’s for the Iraqis to now reach out.

Lal Masjid Siege – Musharraf’s Bluestar

The tense standoff between the Pakistani Army and clerics and suspected militants at Islamabad’s Lal Masjid mosque finally ended in blood shed with the Army using tanks and small artillery fire to storm the mosque and kill the deputy chief cleric Abdul Rashid Ghazi. The total loss of life has been put at 150 with dozens of Army personnel losing their life in the siege. The siege and the trouble leading to the siege has been brewing for months with the Government exchanging terse vocabulary with the Lal Masjid clerics, who themselves had undertaken a anti-vice campaign in the capital city and were adamant on imposition of the Islamic Sharia law in the country. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was left with no clear options than to storm the mosque with the clerics asking for free passage for foreign terrorists holed up in the mosque, which was clearly unacceptable to the pro-US Musharraf regime and for Musharraf’s personal ‘moderate’ credentials. That said the fallout of the siege, though enjoying the support of a majority of Pakistani civil society, will severely influence the longevity of Musharraf’s regime and the pincer effect has finally taken a stranglehold on the eight year old dictatorship.

The genesis of this present face-off is the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001. At that time Musharraf had switched sides from being a Taliban backer to a frontline ally in the war against terror. The persuasion to shift was more because of the threat from the Americans to “wipe Pakistan off the face of the Earth” rather than a new found realization of the perils of Islamic fundamentalism. This shift in policy was however a clever smokescreen. The Taliban, while being removed from the Afghan territories, were replanted by the Pakistani ISI to safer locations along the Afghan-Pakistan border and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Some of the radicals, as it now turns out, were also accommodated to safer locations close to the power centre in Pakistan and the Lal Masjid seemed like a favorable venue for this collection of Islamic fundamentalists. Coupled with local clerics who were increasingly taking a hardline view of Islam and the present day Lal Masjid became the virtual Taliban Embassy in Islamabad. All this while Musharraf was claiming to be a victim of terror and showing his country’s active involvement in removing extremist elements from Pakistan. The overt show of support for the US’ war on terror along with the covert support for Jihadi elements has ensured that Musharraf did not enjoy the support of either grouping. In such a situation an inevitable showdown was all in the making.

The showdown between the Army and the militants and clerics of Lal Masjid has raised some serious questions for the Pakistani establishment. Were the Lal Masjid clerics not propped up by the ISI? It is important to note that the ISI headquarter is barely a mile away from the controversial mosque. This either shows a support of the ISI for the clerics or a catastrophic intelligence failure on part of the ISI who could not notice a build up of weapons and arms. A striking similarity between the buildup in the mosque and the intelligence agencies turning a blind eye is with the buildup of arms and ammunition by Sikh radicals in the Golden Temple in 1984 where the local police and law and order agencies turned a blind eye for a cause that they felt was just. If one were to take the similarities further and compare the unfortunate fallout of Operation Bluestar of 1984 with the events of Operation Silence in Pakistan of 2007 then it certainly does not bode well for Musharraf. The pressure on Musharraf has already begun, today Al Qaeda’s second in command Ayman Al-Zawahiri has called for the end of his regime. Al-Qaeda will definitely step up its activities to take out Musharraf whom they are blaming for the violence that was witnessed during the Lal Masjid siege and have labeled him as an infidel who is being played at the hands of the Americans. The US will also find it difficult to increase pressure on Musharraf to take steps towards bringing an end to military rule in Pakistan and move towards a representative democracy. The Americans will understand that the siege has made Musharraf more vulnerable to Al Qaeda and home grown terror groups who seem to have turned on the military regime. In such a state it is also likely that radicals within the Army may be convinced that Musharraf needs to go and a coup against Musharraf would then become inevitable. The fallout of the siege will also ensure that the ISI will now see this as the end of Musharraf and may even switch sides to the Islamic elements within the armed forces. Both possibilities will be disastrous for Musharraf and for the nascent movement towards democracy with assemble elections slated for October this year.

Analysts have also argued that Musharraf played out Operation Silence to not only redeem his moderate credentials to the world but also to defect personal criticism from the fallout of the sacking of the former Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikar Chaudhary. Either way Musharraf has ended up with a far greater problem that he was facing prior to the Lal Masjid face-off. The US State department’s open backing of the military regime will further deteriorate Musharraf’s stand as terror elements will want to show the mosque siege as an American sponsored operation. So what are the realistic options that Musharraf can activate? First and foremost will be to strengthen his control further over the Army, a hint of a possible coup against him will be the end of his regime. The second most important step would be a realistic move to democratic change by which he may forego some of the absolute powers he enjoys in return for him remaining the head of state. It is also high time that the imposed exile on key political leaders like Nawaz Sharif is ended and both Sharif and Benazir are allowed back into the country to contest elections. If Musharraf manages to maintain a stronghold over the Army, he will not need to worry about the outcome of the elections in October. The Pakistani establishment since independence has been the ones calling the shots and democratically elected leaders have on most occasions - be it Pakistan going nuclear or the Kargil incursion – acted as rubber stamps or worst still been kept in the dark. In such a reality that exists in Pakistan, news reports of a possible ‘understanding’ between Musharraf and Benazir vis-à-vis the impending elections will further weaken the Musharraf regime. Musharraf turned a new leaf overnight after the US led Multinational Forces invaded Afghanistan post the September 11 attacks, the time for a repeat and to turn a new democratic leaf, which is the only way Musharraf can realistically stay in power. If he does not go down the democracy route chances are that the regime might implode or worst still Al Qaeda may just get lucky on its new man topping their hit list.

Doctors on Jihad - The Deadly Prescription

The United Kingdom is witnessing tense days with terror threats reeling the capital London and Scottish city of Glasgow over the past few days. The failed car-bombings at West End and that at Glasgow airport has ensured that the UK has raised its threat perception to its highest level. The failed terror attempts have also proved to be a baptism by fire for the barely week old Gordon Brown government, with the prime minister acknowledging the clear and present danger that Islamic fundamentalism and Al Qaeda linked and/or inspired groups pose for the UK and the larger democratic world in general. The tactics used by the terror plotters are similar to those that are commonplace on the streets of Baghdad, a deadly mix of explosives, fuel and nails that come together to ensure carnage. It is hardly surprising these tactics have now been adapted to the streets of London given the exposure the internet and Jihadi networks have received over the past half a decade. Bomb making tactics and methods to create widespread lose of life and limb are easily available for any individual provided the individual or group has the audacity and zeal to follow the foot steps of earlier “martyrs”. What is surprising though, is the fact that all three attacks failed, with the Glasgow attempt being the only one causing minor damage, the failure of the attempts is more luck and perhaps a sign of first timers giving their dose of Jihad a shot rather than experienced hands planning these attacks.

The initial investigations have also revealed a new face of terror – that of qualified medical professionals being involved directly or helping the perpetrators in carrying out the terror atrocities. For long terror analysts and civil society the world over have argued that the root cause of terror is not directly religion but actually poverty, disenchantment and a sense of alienation felt by poor, uneducated youths towards their governments and society and this ultimately leads them down the path of Jihad and religious fundamentalism. Also the role of Madarassas and other religious teaching schools have come under severe international focus for the role they play in radicalizing the youth. While, it is no doubt true that all the above factors contribute tremendously towards ensuring the radicalizing of youth the world over, the plotters of the latest terror plots in London prove that the explanation may not be the case always or that the profile of the religious extremists is changing. The eight persons currently under custody of the British police and the two detained by the Australian police are all doctors. All are well qualified and from external appearances do not fit the profile usually associated with terrorists, but the police do claim that all those detained were involved in these attacks, either directly or indirectly. This remarkable change in the profile of terror is indeed chilling and a stern reminder that increasingly the call for extremism is slowly taking hold of sections of society that were considered to be moderate and democratic in belief. It also shows that the call to fundamentalism has its roots not only in poverty or disenchantment, but also because of the perceived injustices the war on terror has thrown up. While earlier generations had grown on a steady diet of Arab nationalism that included a sense of pride in being Muslim and part of the Ummah, the current crop has been more inclined to follow the words and actions of men like Osama Bin Laden, for whom the message of destruction amounts to martyrdom. As mentioned, the fact that the terror perpetrators were doctors is surprising to most people, the unfortunate fact however is that many doctors have taken the path of extremism and are high on the terror pecking order. Take for example Al Qaeda’s second in command, Egyptian born Ophthalmologist, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, who spearheaded the Muslim Brotherhood movement in Egypt and his now widely considered the ideological mastermind of the Al Qaeda movement. Closer home, the horrific 2005 bombings in New Delhi, threw up Dr. Tariq Ahmed Dar, who was suspected as the mastermind behind the attacks. Similar examples are not hard to find, however, they remained dispersed in a wide-ranging profile of current Jehadis. The truly surprising aspect of these terror attacks is the fact that the entire ring of terror plotters seem to doctors, something that is unprecedented.

This new profile of the terror cells based in UK further deteriorates the standing of the expatriate South Asian community in Britain. While the radicalization of British Muslim youths was underway soon after the 9/11 attacks, popular perception held that those radicalized were those who were unemployed or those who went astray following the words of some deranged Mullahs. However, with doctors of differing nationalities now becoming an active part of the terror planning and execution, a general backlash against the community is inevitable. Those leaning towards the right of political ideology will see this as another example of how Islam as a religion itself is flawed and is inherently violent. Doctors wanting to work in the UK and Australia will also bear the brunt of the irresponsible actions of a deviant few. That said the onus now really lies with the governments of the Western world to prove to the world that their policies and actions are not a scheme to exploit the Muslim people or to gain a foothold in their lands, but rather their policies are based in ensuring human rights and freedom for all people. Guantanamo Bay, Haditha and Abu Gharaib however, will take more time and a definite shift in policy to prove as mere footnotes in the larger struggle to rid the world of religious fundamentalism and imperial war mongering.

The Elasticity of Democracy

Of the numerous forms of government and governance that have taken shape in the modern world, the two most prominent have been Communism and democracy. While the former took the world by storm in the twentieth century, it withered under some of its own ideological contradictions and due to the lack of realization of people’s free will to own property and wealth. The latter has proved to be more successful in terms of acceptability and admiration amongst most nations of the world. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, democracy has become the norm to the modern world akin to what the monarchy was to the Middle Ages – accepted and unchallenged. However, if the American War of Independence in the eighteenth century is taken as the birth of modern democracy, in the intervening three centuries has democracy proven to be the fool proof model of governance, a form of governance acceptable to all races, classes and sections of society. Furthermore, is democracy a strict form of government, much like theology, or can democracy in the words of King Abdullah of Jordan mean “different things to different peoples”. There are four telling examples from the past seven years that outline how democracy has been stretched to its limits, where leaders and governments have come to the helm and governed against what could be called the people’s mandate.

The principal example of this stretch of democracy is from the United States of America, the oldest democracy in the world. In 2000, the Presidential campaign saw the incumbent Vice President, Al Gore square off against the Republican contender George Bush. Both men gave a meaty fight which polarized the country down the middle. The results from Florida were contested and for the first time in Presidential elections did the Supreme Court have to intervene and declare George Bush the winner. It was also the first election where "hanging chads" saw more airtime than policy initiatives from both candidates. While the 2000 Presidential election results have been dissected ad nauseum by political pundits, journalists and politicians alike, the majority of the American population that voted for Gore felt that democracy had cheated them. How can democracy be representative when such a major section of society vehemently opposed the candidate that was elected? The ‘first past the post’ style of democracy was truly stretched in this election and many argued whether the “majority wins” model is truly representative in such cases where the verdict could have gone either way. Proponents of democracy argue that while some of the arguments against first past the post may hold merit, ultimately it is not possible for a democratic system to fulfill the desires of everyone; rather, it is the elected leader who must unite his country. The reason why this polarization has been so exacerbated in case of the US is simple. One, George Bush failed to unite his country even in his second term in office and second, more cynically, this sort of a result in the developing world would have been labeled as a sham, but because it happened in the cradle of democracy, the debate raged rather than calls for a re-election.

The merits and drawbacks of the system aside, an important question also arises from the very source that ensures democratic norms – the electorate. If one leaves the debatable 2000 elections aside and considers the 2004 Presidential elections the role of the electorate is clearly in question. If the country was outraged by the manner with which Bush used his money and political influence to win the presidency why was he not removed in 2004? There again, the proponents of democracy argue that the Bush beat John Kerry in real voting numbers and hence democracy cannot be faulted as a system. However, if one were to again leave the 2004 results aside and blame the real threat that the US faced post the September 11 attacks and also the lackluster campaign that Kerry ran, once can safely say that Bush cannot be faulted for stretching democracy. Having said that, 2007 is a telling example of the stretch of democracy. With approval ratings being the lowest for any president in living memory and a war that has turned the nation against the White House, how can democracy be truly representative if a majority of people are against the man who is in charge. Surely, by voting out a Republican held Senate and Congress will not fundamentally change the policies of the President, as has been demonstrated recently with the Presidential veto on two important bills. The right to impeach a President too lies with Capitol Hill, but if a large swathe of the electorate have lost trust in the administration why is the Hill not moving an impeachment motion? Is there not a disconnect between the public sentiment and the policies of their elected representatives. Further, how can the people complain against the President, when a majority amongst them has voted for the incumbent?

The second example is that of the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a few days time the most successful Labour Party prime minister will make way for his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. Having won three elections, he finally had to make way for his closest rival Brown. But here again is there not a stretching of democratic norms. For the people in 2005 voted for Tony Blair for a full term as Premier. Infact, during the campaign Blair talked about a possible fourth term. He neither indicated a date to leave or whether he will be quitting in the months or years to come. While it would be naïve to deny the likelihood of Brown taking over from Blair, democratic openness should have allowed for fresh elections in case of the incumbent stepping down. The British media has used words like ‘coronation’ and ‘anointment’ for Brown’s succession to 10 Downing. That to most observers that seems like a leaf out of the dictionary of monarchs rather than a modern democracy. So, both examples do highlight the shortfalls inherent in both forms of democracy – the Presidential and the Westminster model of governance.

The third example is that of the Palestinian group Hamas. In an election in 2006, Hamas won with overwhelming majority in what were called free and fair elections by most Western governments. What followed was a total subversion of the mandate with the Western world imposing sanctions on the newly elected government. While for decades the West talked about the welfare, freedom and dignity of the Palestinian people, why could the West not accept the voice of the electorate? It would be dangerous to defend the actions and policies of Hamas, a known militant group hell bent on destroying Israel, but then there are countless examples of democratically elected governments that have waged wars against their neighbors. Further, in all fairness, the West never let the Hamas led government take charge of the Palestinian territories with immediate economic sanctions crippling the virtually non-existent Palestinian economy and radicalizing youths against the West. The relevant question that comes up is this – is democracy only considered credible if the person in charge is friendly with the West or a section of the developed world? Does the people’s mandate lose its significance because of the elected government’s non – conformity with the foreign and economic policies of the West? By systematically removing the Hamas government from power, the West has further reduced the chances of heralding democracy to the Middle East anytime soon.

The final example comes from our own politics. 2004 is considered a watershed for the Congress party in India. They not only strengthened their position as a party, they left political pundits red-faced by bucking the trend and coming to power in the general elections held that year. The campaign and the run-up to the elections saw a clear division of all political parties into the NDA camp and the then non-existent UPA. The NDA had projected Atal Bihari Vajpayee as the nominee for the premiership. The Congress on the other hand projected, albeit unofficially, Sonia Gandhi as their prime ministerial candidate. Today, the Congress party may deny any such move to install Mrs. Gandhi as prime minister; history though, exposes their lie. In 1998, after mid term elections, the Congress Party went to the President where Mrs. Gandhi proclaimed that she had the required 272 to form a government and become premier. The proclamation fizzled out due a variety of reasons and Sonia lost her chance to become Prime Minister. The 2004 campaigning saw the Congress actively looking to project Mrs. Gandhi for the top post in case the party came to power. Most Congress voters voted for them in the hope of installing Mrs. Gandhi as the premier. Had the debate on a foreign born becoming the prime minister not gained considerable ground as it did during the campaign, Mrs. Gandhi would have become India’s prime minister. However, her now famous “inner voice” spoke and she decided to hand over the premiership to Dr. Manmohan Singh. While Dr. Singh enjoys excellent credentials as an economic powerhouse and for his scholarly insights, his electoral campaigns, though, were a major source of embarrassment for the Congress party. In such a scenario, where the section of the population who voted for Congress wanted to see Sonia Gandhi as prime minister, did she not disrespect their mandate by installing Dr. Singh? Was democracy not stretched to its very limits with such a move? How can the Prime Minister confidently say that he is the right man for the job when not one person voted for him per se, to take over the mantle of premiership? How can such a move be called a representation of the national sentiment when the person who people voted for backs out the very last minute. More importantly, has Sonia Gandhi not shied away from the responsibility the nation’s electorate had entrusted in her?

So, where lies the solution and how can democracy become more representative and ever evolving in the modern world. While for smaller countries the luxury of a re-election is an option, as is the right to impeach their head of State or government. But for larger nations like us, the idea of having a run-off as in the case of the French Presidential election, till a single party wins a majority is neither feasible nor will it be representative. The right to recall a government is an option that is a fundamental requirement of every democracy. A referendum is the key to ensuring whether a government stays or goes. While the idea may be extravagant and expensive, it will put the checks and balances that are required to make democracy truly representative. However much tinkering that we may do with the democratic model, the beauty of the system is the very fact that we can modify and criticize it. So while there may not be solutions to make democracy truly representative, we should never underestimate the power of democracy and its ability to change nations – like ours. Democracy has ensured free speech and right to ownership, a fundamental of human nature that has not changed since the evolution of man, and one must respect the democratic model on that count, flawed as it maybe, but then so are humans.

Palestine Churning - The point of no return

The crisis in the Palestinian territories seems to be nose-diving towards complete anarchy. The events of last week has left the world wondering whether we are all witnessing the partitioning of Palestinian territories even before the people of Palestine could achieve complete statehood. The two rival factions – Fatah and Hamas have fought each other to take control of their respective strongholds of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The outing of Fatah from Gaza was particularly brutal with eyewitness accounts of gross human rights violations and the unashamed execution of Fatah members by the Hamas faction. The Fatah side reacted almost immediately and has now ousted the Hamas from the West Bank in a tit for tat battle of attrition. The unity government, which was formed after the Mecca Declaration in March this year, saw hopes for peace rise with both Hamas and Fatah sharing power in order to achieve the ultimate goal of complete statehood. The euphoria was short lived, even my Middle Eastern standards, and within months the two sides were fighting street battles through their militias and political battles in the prime minister’s cabinet. That the West had completely cut foreign aid and the fragile territories energy supply led to increased frustrations amongst politicians and ordinary Palestinians alike. The stated aim of the embargo was to make the Hamas renounce violence and recognize the state of Israel. As it unfortunately turned out, the West’s sanctions not only took the wheels of the nascent Palestinian government, it further hardened the extremist outfits of Hamas, who saw this as another injustice by the West in order to arm twist the Palestinian people to recognize Israel. Ultimately, the viability of the unity government seemed vulnerable from the start and the West’s actions precipitated its downfall. As things stand, President Mahmoud Abbas, of the Fatah, has dismissed the Hamas led Ismael Hanieyah government and has sworn in Salaam Fayyad as the new interim Prime Minister. Fayyad, a former finance minister, will now pave the way for a new government that will be elected by the Palestinian people. The Fayyad premiership will appeal to most Palestinians as he is seen as a non-partisan independent belonging to neither faction.

The paramount question that faces the leaders of the Middle East and the West is how to get the defunct road map to peace back on track and how to ensure that this current crisis does not take on multi-national dimensions. To avoid this domino effect to chaos, the West, particularly the US, will urgently need to learn from its mistakes and take some crucial leadership steps to bring back Palestine from the proverbial brink. First and foremost, there is an urgent need to appoint a US representative to the Middle East. The current twin pronged approach towards diplomacy involves the use of multinational and multi body instruments like the Quartet, which includes the U.S., EU, Russia and the UN or to use shuttle diplomacy through Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. Neither has proved effective, with the Quartet not making any significant progress on the Oslo accords and the inherent disadvantages of a multibody approach causing things to go nowhere. The use of Rice as an effective mediator is seen as ad-hoc and only as a fire-fighting mechanism with the Secretary of State flying into the region only at a time of crisis. The US has gained tremendously from use of its special envoy for the North Korean talks in Christopher Hill. His persistence and presence in the region has ensured that the North Koreans have taken encouraging steps to bring its nuclear weapons under international inspections. This after the first testing of a nuclear device by the North Koreans seemed to have spelt the death knell to negotiations. By persisting with diplomacy and by continuing to talk to its friends and enemies the US can expect favorable results from the North Korean talks. A similar replication of this model needs to infused into the Middle East. Cynics may argue that with only eighteen months left in the Bush administrations tenure, appointing a Middle East representative will achieve little. While that may be true, it will however, send a clear signal of America’s intent on resolving this decades old dispute. Optimistically, this step may actually help in achieving some progress on President Bush’s stated two-nations living side-by-side policy initiative. The chequered legacy that the President will most definitely leave behind will also indict him for further deteriorating the Middle East conflict rather than improving it in any measurable manner. A peace envoy may just help the Bush Administration clear the air about the seriousness with which it takes the Arab-Israel dispute.

The other key learning that the West must take out of the entire crisis is that embargo’s, travel bans and economic sanctions on most occasions hurt the common man rather than having its intended effect on the ruling dispensation of any country. The list of failed sanctions is elaborate and some notable examples include Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Syria and now the Palestinian government under Hamas. Closer home, the sanctions that followed the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998 had little effect on both countries and ultimately the US had to remove sanctions and restore complete diplomatic relations with both countries. In the specific case of the Palestinian territories the ordinary Palestinian has felt continuously let down by the West. They voted when the West asked for the spread of democracy in the region. They elected a Hamas government, whom they thought would bring great social change after years of Fatah misrule and corruption. Hamas, on the other hand, had done some commendable work in the field of health and education in the Gaza strip, which led the electorate to believe that this would be the way of an elected Hamas government. However, Hamas continued to rule like a militia in charge rather than respect the mandate for change. The Hamas top brass felt that their election was the ringing endorsement for a further hardening of its people’s stance against Israeli occupation. They not only upped the ante against the Israeli armed forces but also played a crucial role in opening a second front in Gaza after the Israel- Hezbollah war broke out in 2006. The Palestinian people suffered further with the increased sanctions that were put into place by the West for the actions of the Hamas government. Rising unemployment and a rage against the west ensured that the militias only gained recruits but also a sense of injustice and a crisis was all for the making. The Palestinian people are now suffering the fallout of the power vacuum that has left them wondering what the future holds for them. The destructive role of sanctions has once again toppled a government, albeit, with a residual chaos that the West will find difficult to handle. The Hamastan, as some analysts are calling the new realities of Gaza, will further witness crushing sanctions which will not affect the Iranian financed Hamas, but the ordinary man, woman and child on the streets of Gaza.

The U.S will also have to realize that the proxy war it is playing with the Iranians is only harming its interests while at the same time strengthening Iran. The West’s call for Iran to end its nuclear program has fallen on deaf ears and the Iranians are playing a concerted public relations exercise to ensure that they are portrayed as the victims and the US as the aggressor in the region. The use of Iranian manufactured arms and weapons by Shia groups in Iraq, the Hezbollah in Lebanon and by Hamas in Gaza is indeed worrying. However, the West must count its options before opening too many theatres of conflict with the chances of winning any being rare. The Israel – Lebanon conflict of 2006 was widely seen as a defeat for Israel. The Hezbollah emerged stronger and in doing so has ensured that the Western backed Fioud Siniora government is further weakened by assassinations of prominent politicians. In Iraq, the situation is clearly not under control with sectarian strife assuming the 2006 proportions with a string of bombings of Shia and Sunni mosques meant to foment tension and violence. The Palestinian territories are further witnessing chaos. In such a situation, the American ploy to ratchet up the pressure on Iran will only aggravate the problems of the region rather than alleviate them. The Bush administration will have to ease its ego over Iran and put Iran in historical context. For better part of the last two millennia, Iran’s Persian Empire had been unconquered and unchallenged. The Persians always ruled areas that included modern Iran and no other kingdom or empire came close to defeating the might of the Persians. After the Islamic revolution, Iran has now again wanted its place as amongst the most influential countries in the world. With ample oil reserves and a sizeable army it has gained influence in the region over the years. The Iranians, it must be noted, helped the United States overthrow the Taliban on its Eastern flanks and ensured that the Northern Alliance took control of Afghanistan. However, with the war in Iraq, Iran sought to gain influence in the only country with a Shia majority apart from itself. The Americans failed to take this into account before the invasion. Iran now looks to dominate all Shia areas, which include parts of Lebanon. However, history has also taught us that the Arabs and Persians have not taken to each other for centuries. In this regional fight the Americans should stay clear of hostilities that date back centuries rather than blatantly take sides. In real terms it means that the Americans should look to placate Iran in order to extract benefits in Iraq and Palestine. Fighting through Israel and western backed governments will only help Iran not harm it.

The Arab people, including the Palestinians, have also long felt the desire to break free from American hegemony in the region that exists either through US backed governments like in Lebanon or through physical occupation as in the case of Iraq. These “client” governments, so installed by the blessing of the West, are seen as western hypocrisy by the Arabs. The West selectively prescribes democracy for some states while blesses regimes with leaders of questionable constitution. The idea that “one size does not fit all” irks the Arabs into believing that the West and the US are advocating democracy only for its own Machiavellian benefits. The US and West must give up that notion as backing non-democratic, corrupt regimes will only further throw up more Hamas’ and Hezbollah’s of the region. While such a u-turn may not be possible for years, even decades, it a fundamental shift in foreign policy that the West must be ready for if it wants things to change on the ground.

So today, the world is watching Palestine return to chaos after only days of calm. Not one analyst is ready to wager on the outcome of the current churning that’s in progress. What is true is that Palestine has taken a route that will significantly change the region and the Middle East peace process permanently. For it is the first time that the West will have to contend with not one, but two Palestinian entities. The West has already shown its open backing for Fatah, and in doing so, has ensured that Hamas will further want to show the Fatah faction as being the lapdog of the U.S. The open backing for Fatah may encourage aid to come the West Bank, in the long term, however, it will also lead to a backlash against Fatah, who will be seen as siding with the West at a time of a fresh Gaza crisis. Days after the overthrow of Saddam, then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice has proclaimed that the route to resolving the Palestinian peace process was through Baghdad. With Gaza looking more and more like Baghdad, one wonders whether the ghost of Baghdad is coming to haunt Gaza.