The New Cold War in Syria: New Age Islam's Selection, 03 May 2017
New
Age Islam Edit Bureau
03 May 2017
• The New Cold War in Syria
By Hussain Nadim
• Did America ‘Sabotage’ Pakistan’s Democratisation?
By Touqir Hussain
• The Elusive Path of Respect
By Muhammad Hamid Zaman
• Of Morality and Politics
By Hussain H Zaidi
• The Jittery French Elections
By Sajjad Ahmad
• The Espionage Bug
By Kuldip Nayar
• Baby Steps
By Mahir Ali
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
The New Cold War in Syria
By Hussain Nadim
April 30, 2017
If it was truly about Syria or defeating the ISIS, the mess that we see in the region today would have been solved relatively easier. The unfolding of recent events, including the US strategic bombing to ‘save’ human lives, is a classic Cold War era style of politics and continuation of proxy wars all over again. We have seen this too many times before, during the Cold War in Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and Latin America.
What started as a movement for democracy in Syria back in 2011 became entangled into regional power politics between Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel on one end, against Iran, Assad regime and Hezbollah on the other. Fast forward to 2017, the global superpowers, the US, Europe and Russia, are all densely involved in backing their proxies.
If it was about defeating ISIS, how long would it have taken for these global powers and Nato, with a military budget worth trillions of dollars, to wipe off untrained and ill-equipped ISIS fighters? The problem is not defeating ISIS, the global powers are locked down into an impasse over post-ISIS power structure in the region, meanwhile allowing time to ISIS to gain momentum, conduct propaganda, recruit militants and attack Western cities.
Trump Gives Pentagon Power To Reset Iraq, Syria Troop Limits
The global power ‘politics’ or hypocrisy is such that under the label of ‘fighting’ ISIS, regional powers have been putting their own interests first. Turkey, for instance, has been more inclined on bombing Kurdish forces instead of targeting ISIS fighters. Saudis have been aiding ISIS indirectly to thwart off growing Iranian influence in the region. Americans, on the other hand, are supposedly fighting against ISIS, yet supporting the Saudis at the same time.
The security emergency that the threat of ISIS has provided is helping both regional and global powers to reframe the post-ISIS power structure in their own favour. The tragedy for Syria and its people is that it is a country where global superpowers have unfortunately come in direct confrontation to one another over their ‘national interests’.
The events in Syria reveal a lot about the global power structure and the international order. First, they demonstrate that despite all the advancement and progress of human society, the global South continues to remain under the hegemony of the North. Despite the entire rhetoric over decolonisation since the last Great War, the fact is that the Middle East and numerous other former colonies have remained under the shadow of superpowers’ ‘national interests’.
Global Press Freedom At 13-Year Low: Survey
Post-WWII, the superpowers didn’t have colonies, instead just their ‘national interests’ in regions as far as Afghanistan or Syria. Naturally, any movement for self-determination or against the foreign-sponsored rulers in those regions in the 21st century will be a direct threat to the ‘national security’ of such powers. The war as we see in Syria is, thus, really the war of foreign ‘national interests’ colliding with one another.
Second, the continued crisis in Syria reveals that the priority of global powers isn’t to defeat the ISIS but to ensure that the ‘right’ power setup is arranged during the post-ISIS regional order. This securitisation of foreign policy has allowed swift increase in military and defence spending under the label of ‘threat from the ISIS’. The innocent taxpayers have little clue that it’s not their ‘security’ that is at risk but the security of ‘national interest’ somewhere in the rural Middle East that is under threat.
Third and very important is the obvious lesson that must be learnt, weakening down of institutions and governance setup through foreign occupation, bombing and destruction allows space to breed terrorist organisations. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and now Syria all represent how the recklessness of superpowers have destroyed institutional structures, giving space for militant organisations, such as the ISIS to seize control.
As long as the crisis in Syria is not separated from thick Cold War politics, priorities not settled and ‘national interests’ of the foreign powers continue to dominate the strategy and discourse, Syria is going to tread the path of destruction, and on its way may even trigger a wider war that may not just be fought in the Middle East, but also on the streets of developed countries as we saw in Paris.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1397070/new-cold-war-syria/
----
Did America ‘Sabotage’ Pakistan’s Democratisation?
By Touqir Hussain
May 2, 2017
Washington’s post-9/11 claims of democracy promotion in the Islamic world, especially in the Middle East, were as hollow as recriminations in these countries that America had historically been responsible for blocking their democracy. Washington did play some negative role by supporting unrepresentative regimes but how much blame should be assigned to it relative to the internal forces is a matter of debate. Let us look at Pakistan’s case.
There is no denying that the US-Pakistan relations have been the strongest during the army rule in Pakistan, and that economic and military aid received by the army helped it to prolong its rule and weaken the political process and democratic institutions. Was America then guilty of sabotaging democracy in Pakistan? Not quite. Such a suggestion is based on a questionable assumption that the army alone was responsible for undermining democracy and the civilians had little or no role in it. Equally false is the inference that without Washington’s support the army would not have had the capability or the political will to rule Pakistan.
‘Pakistan not incapable of evolving viable democracy’
Yet the charge against Washington persists, based largely on a myth that nothing moves in Pakistan without the US approval. And if the army stayed in power for so long and intervened repeatedly it is because America willed so.
Why myths are so seductive? Because they often have some factual basis, however, slender, which for psychological or political reasons gets exaggerated or falsified. It is a fact that the US in advancement of its economic and strategic interests has had a long history of interventionist policies, especially in the Western Hemisphere and the Middle East. The approach was abandoned after the fall of Shah of Iran but saw a brief comeback during George Bush’s administration, under the cover of his so-called democracy promotion initiative.
The reality is “democracy promotion” was just a code word for regime change in countries seen as hostile to the US national security or economic interests or the interests of its allies in the Middle East, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and other conservative monarchies. It also gave a moral underpinning to the post-9/11 wars.
There is thus enough evidence to inspire suspicion about American intentions and conduct in Pakistan. But suspicion is not a fact. For facts we have to focus on the polity of Pakistan, its power structure, dominant social groups and existential dilemmas, and its search for identity, security and organising idea. That will give us a much better answer to questions about who has played what role in Pakistan’s political development.
Given the circumstances of Pakistan’s birth and India’s implacable hostility to the new state, Pakistan had no option but to give survival the central priority in its national agenda, especially as there were also serious challenges of maintaining national unity and setting up administrative framework, economic infrastructure and governance institutions. That led to the emergence of a high profile for the army and civil military bureaucracy, who prospered in the shadow of failing politicians.
Lessons for Pakistan from the US: Democracy only works if you participate
The system had it successes and failures. The prolonged rule of Ayub Khan brought significant economic development and stability but helped establish the army’s primacy in a security denominated centralised and authoritarian state. Ziaul Haq injected religion into this paradigm, making Islamists a part of its support system. And there emerged a model of Pakistan in which, religion, social order, national security, and foreign policy were rolled into one and came to affect its political process.
Politicians went along with this organising idea as it served the class and institutional interests of the country’s broad spectrum of power centres and stakeholders, and also gave them an easy route to power. They and the army figured that out, aided by bureaucracy and a pliant judiciary, and a focus on Islam, they only needed each other to appropriate power and did not have to court the public or fear accountability. It thus supported a personalised rule. The model served the ruling establishment well while benefiting Pakistan up to a point. Politicians and the army took turns in ruling the country, without reference to people, and with help from external benefactors, a principal one being Washington.
If Washington worked better with the army it was because the US interests in Pakistan have primarily been military and intelligence related. Beyond the army and the country’s geopolitical location, Pakistan’s value was limited. Also Washington’s need for Pakistan was sporadic not permanent, and it so happened that whenever it needed Pakistan the army was already in power in some form or another.
But Washington did not always have good relations with the army’s Pakistan. When Ayub Khan had challenged American interests in South Asia with opening up to China and the 1965 war, he fell out of favour with President Johnson. But he continued to rule for another four years. Yahya Khan was an untouchable till he helped set up the US-China dialogue.
Zia started off with a pariah status in Washington because of the coup and Pakistan’s pursuit of nuclear weapons programme. Pakistan came under different sets of nuclear-related sanctions imposed under Glenn and Symington Amendments. But with the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Zia became a celebrated leader in the West. Washington’s support for him, however, started wavering because of differences over the Geneva talks, yet his regime lived on. As for Musharraf he was completely isolated for good two years prior to 9/11 with Pakistan under not only Pressler, but also democracy and nuclear tests related sanctions.
The army was, thus, neither brought to power by Washington nor was it helped to stay in power. While the US was weaving in and out of Pakistan, the army had found other friends — China beginning in 1965, and Saudi Arabia following the 1973 rise in oil prices. If the army needed outside benefactors to stay in power it had enough of them.
Pakistan is not a banana republic. It is a nation of nearly 190 million hardworking and resilient people and an educated middle class with an extensive institutional network and established governance structure. The rulers may have taken dumb decisions for Pakistan, preventing it from realising its full potential but they have been exceptionally smart in taking decisions to strengthen their own power. They cannot be manipulated by outsiders. America has taken nothing from Pakistan which its leadership did not give it willingly.
Pakistan’s tortuous road to democracy is a function of its own internal dynamics. America did not create or manipulate this dynamics; it merely exploited it to its advantage. Pakistan’s democracy now appears to have stabilised. Hopefully it will continue to make advances but let us not forget its story so far has been domestic not external.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1398562/america-sabotage-pakistans-democratisation/
----
The Elusive Path of Respect
By Muhammad Hamid Zaman
May 2, 2017
Generalisations about integrity, or worse character, based simply on political affiliations are both naïve and inaccurate. Generalisations about character based on race, ethnicity, religion or gender are even more problematic and utterly unacceptable. This problem of generalisation and attack on character takes an even darker turn when it comes from those who hold national political office. Such a thing coming from the prime minister is in a league of its own.
When the prime minister, during a speech last week, made a remark about the women of a rival party and questioned their character en masse, he connected political affiliation with morality, and in doing so, suggested that members of the opposing party were somehow morally inferior and their character questionable. It was sad to see the high reach of our deep social relationship with misogyny. It was devastating to be reminded again that instead of arguments about policy and strategy, or a debate about vision and the future, our discourse is still fixated on what women do in political rallies. In making the remark, the premier made it clear that despite some small, but important gains in legislation and a stronger national statement against honour killings, attacking women and their character is still fair game. The long road to inclusion, respect and understanding got a whole lot longer by just one statement in Okara. Once again, we were reminded that men have an irrevocable national certificate to judge the character of women, should they not act according to some arbitrary norms set by men themselves.
While the remark was disgusting and unacceptable to so many people, regardless of political affiliation, the silence of many within the ruling party is equally troubling. One would have hoped that members of the ruling political party would have condemned it and distanced themselves from the statement. Sadly, that did not happen. One would have also expected that those in the party who continue to champion development and ushering a “better Pakistan” would have said that misogyny and progress have nothing in common. But that did not happen either.
Also missing from our national character is the culture of apology. A sincere apology would not weaken the political base or create fissures in the party, instead it would provide a human touch often missing from those who hold high offices. Not sure when men decided that apologising is a sign of weakness and accepting a mistake is a failure. Perhaps the cloak of infallibility comes with the certificate to judge women.
Such events, however, are not surprising. Our national discourse, including on national television, continues to reflect our deep bond with misogyny. The jokes, in particular, focus disproportionately on women. Gross and often misleading generalisations about looks and attitudes form the core basis of what we consider funny. Just to illustrate this point with an example, I watched a few late night comedy shows. In nearly every single one there was a pattern of jokes about how (much) women talk, how ungrateful they are, how they like to spend their spouses’ hard-earned money and how men are inherently scared of their wrath. Disturbed by this, I thought that perhaps this was the national misogyny week, so I went online and randomly selected shows from various months and weeks, and much to my disgust, the pattern was the same.
Maybe the statement from the prime minister is a reminder that we are a true democracy and our leadership reflects who we are. But the optimist in me is hoping that the prime minister will recognise his mistake, apologise for his statement and set an example that the path forward will have nothing but respect for our fellow citizens, irrespective of their gender, faith or ethnicity.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1398545/elusive-path-respect/
----
The Jittery French Elections
By Sajjad Ahmad
May 2, 2017
In an era of rising populism in Europe, Britain’s fast approaching exit from the European Union and the US under Trump, the result of the French polls’ first round has sent a sense of relief to Paris, Brussels and Berlin. Being considered a ‘cradle of Western democratic values and European integration’, the French Republic has been saved, at least temporarily, by not slipping in the hands of Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Front [FN]. The first round of the hotly contested French polls was won by the liberal candidate Emmanuel Macron with 8.6 million votes, while Le Pen came second with 7.6 million votes. Both candidates are now in the second round of polls, scheduled on May 7th 2017.
Interestingly, the pro-EU Macron launched his campaign for presidency last year. Never been elected to political office and no longer member of a political party, Macron was appointed as a senior adviser by Francois Hollande in 2012. He later briefly served as minister of economy. Macron aims for French national unity. His election manifesto promises reforms in taxation, employment and the French welfare system. Macron is also a critique of US president Donald Trump’s environmental and economic policies.
Le Pen, on the other hand, is a Euro-sceptic and calls for France’s pullout from the EU. Her party calls for closing French borders and cutting down immigration. Exploiting the on-going refugee crisis, which is already a divisive issue for Europe, she intensified her anti-immigration and anti-Islam cry in her election campaign. In a hard-line speech while launching her presidential race, she said: “We don’t want to live under the yoke or the threat of Islamic fundamentalism.”
This was not the first time Le Pen raised the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to mobilise her supporters. After the deadly Paris attacks of November 2015, which killed 130 people and injured dozens, she demanded a crackdown on Islamic extremists. Similarly, in the wake of the Nice attack in July 2016, she was swift to blame ‘Islamist fundamentalists’ behind the incident. Clearly, Le Pen’s anti-Islamic rhetoric and stance guaranteed her a lot of votes. The results of French polls’ first round indicate an increase of her support base.
Taking over the leadership of FN from her father, Jean-Marie, in 2011, Le Pen has been successful in bagging a staggering 7.6 million votes, 2.8 million more than her father got in 2002. The acceptance of her appeal to such a large population is enough to send shockwaves through the pro-EU political circles. This is the second time that FN has become successful in contesting the run-off. First time the party managed to attain in the final race under the leadership of Jean-Marie in 2002.
The polling survey predicts that Macron would defeat Le Pen by 62pc to 38pc in the May run-off. This is also because Macron is likely to get support from voters of other Socialist, left and centre-right candidates. Macron has already garnered backing of the defeated conservative candidate Francois Fillon, who, in order to oust Le Pen from gaining French presidency, has called his followers to back Macron. By repeatedly drawing a connection between immigration and Islamist fundamentalism, Le Pen has bolstered support for her party. According to Sylvain Crepon, a National Front expert, Jean-Marie also made a similar move in the past. After the Paris train attacks of 1995, his electoral support sharply increased when he drew a link between immigration and security.
The popularity and support base for Le Pen and her populist agenda is likely to influence forthcoming governments’ actions and policies about immigration and other such related issues. She already extended her influence on the previous centre-right party of Socialist president Francois Hollande to adopt a tougher anti-immigration stance in the wake of the Paris attacks. For now, it appears that Le Pen would not be elected. However, we have seen surprising outcomes of certain elections over the last year. Nevertheless, the increasing support for the far-right populism that she stands for will remain a challenge for France.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1398553/jittery-french-elections/
----
Of Morality and Politics
By Hussain H Zaidi
May 3, 2017
As in the case of the 2013 general elections, the Supreme Court’s split verdict in the Panama leaks has something for everyone. This explains why the judgment has become a cause for celebration for the respondents and the petitioners, the ruling party as well as the opposition. But, as in case of the previous elections, the PML-N has gained more than the rest. This is the reason why the judgment is not equally pleasing for all.
The ideal scenario for the opposition – particularly for the PTI, which was the main petitioner – was that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif would be shown the door by the court. Although two of the five members of the bench declared Sharif incapable of holding public office, the majority judgment – which is legally binding – stopped short of passing such an order. The judges differed on whether the evidence put before them was sufficient to send the country’s chief executive home under Article 184 of the constitution.
The worst-case scenario for the petitioners was that the court would give the PM a clean chit and dismiss the petitions. The decision to constitute a joint investigation team (JIT) to probe the alleged corruption by the ruling family – not to mention the plethora of adverse remarks contained against the PM in the judgment – means that the Panama leaks case is not a closed transaction.
The best and worst case scenarios for the government were quite different. While the ruling party may heave a sigh of relief, the proverbial sword of Damocles continues to hang over its head. The dissenting note also puts the government in a tight spot, both politically as well as morally.
In the wake of the verdict, the opposition had two courses of action open to it. First, it could patiently wait for the JIT to finish its inquiry and report back to the apex court. From day one, it has eschewed this option and decided to pressurise the PM into stepping down. The opposition’s argument in favour of the position it has adopted is partly moral and partly pragmatic. The argument goes that the PM has lost his moral authority to continue in office and with him at the helm of affairs, the JIT, drawn from civil and military departments or agencies, will find it exceedingly difficult to conduct a fair probe.
Both these arguments have substance. Based on popular consent, a democratically-elected government’s authority is both legal and moral. Although Sharif’s position is legally secure – at least for the time being – his ethical authority has been severely eroded by the judgment. In a mature, functional democracy such adverse remarks would have resulted in resignation.
That said, Pakistan’s is a different story. There is no precedent of a top leader resigning from his position. There is little doubt that anyone else in Sharif’s position would not have resigned either. For five years, Asif Zardari shielded himself behind the constitutional provisions of presidential immunity. It never occurred to him for even a moment that he should waive his immunity and put himself under accountability.
As for Imran Khan, in the past he pinned high hopes on other forces for pulling the government down. In a mature democracy, the opposition leader would never contemplate such a move.
Morality in politics is not restricted to making an exit from the corridors of power when the situation calls for it. It also includes refraining oneself from entering those corridors through the back door.
The opposition is not naive enough to believe that Sharif would vacate the office of his own accord. Through a series of protests and rallies, he must therefore be coerced into doing so. Imran Khan, who has spearheaded the anti-graft campaign against the Sharifs, considers himself to be the principal beneficiary if the premier resigns now.
Through the first half of the incumbent government’s tenure, Imran Khan made abortive attempts to force Sharif to quit for allegedly rigging the 2013 elections. Being a fighter to the bone, he never gives in. And where there’s a will, there’s a way. If one is committed to fighting, there’s no dearth of opportunities to grab at.
But willing to fight is one thing and fighting successfully is another. To take the current campaign against graft to its intended end, Imran Khan needs the support of other opposition parties, notably the PPP, which has gone into an equally aggressive mode. If the PPP and the PTI make a common cause against the Sharif government, snap polls may be in sight.
There are, however, many ifs and buts. When it comes to corruption, the top leadership of the PPP is as much of a sitting duck as the House of Sharif. If Imran Khan can be uncompromising on the allegedly corrupt practices of the ruling family, he can’t be expected to be softer on the PPP. So after the Sharifs, Zardari and his colleagues may find themselves on the receiving end. Then there’s the question of saving the system. Despite all claims of democracy having taken root in Pakistan, the democratic facade remains a house of cards – always a kick away from falling apart. So the possibility that the present set-up may creak under the strain of a popular movement can’t be ruled out. This is the point at which the PPP and the PTI will surely part ways.
At all events, the coming few weeks will see political temperature shoot up as a beleaguered Sharif would endeavour to fend off his opponents. Loyalties and alliances will likely shift and both the carrot and the stick will come into play. The economy, already reeling under a high current account deficit and struggling to achieve fiscal consolidation and create jobs, will come under a lot of strain.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/202080-Of-morality-and-politics
---
The Espionage Bug
By Kuldip Nayar
ONE bug which has bitten both India and Pakistan and now Bangladesh is the espionage. Anyone who visits from the neighbouring country is considered a spy until proved otherwise. It really depends on the External and Home ministries whether a particular person would be let off freely. In other words, the police force is an arbiter. And it goes without saying that the sentence awarded to the person would be life time imprisonment or death and normally, the court decides.
National English daily Dawn has reported how Yadav, an Indian businessman, was sentenced to death. “Indian RAW Agent/Naval officer 41558Z Commander Kulbhushan Sudhir Yadav alias Hussein Mubarak Patel was arrested on March 3, 2016 through a Counter Intelligence Operation from Mashkel, Balochistan, for his involvement in espionage and sabotage activities against Pakistan. “The spy has been tried through Field General Court Martial (FGCM) under Pakistan Army Act (PAA) and awarded death sentence,” the military’s public affairs wing, ISPR, announced on Monday, April 10. Sartaj Aziz, Advisor on Foreign Affairs to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has admitted that there was little evidence to convict but other things, he says, add up to prove Yadav’s involvement. In any case, Sartaj Aziz words are adequate. Since Pakistan has submitted the relevant papers to the Secretary General UN. It believes that the verdict, if he at all delivers, would be in favour of Islamabad.
Indeed, it is hell for a person who visits a neighbouring country. He or she is pursued by the Intelligence department wherever he goes. Even the shopkeeper is questioned as if he is party to the buyer’s selection of the place. Markets want buyers from a neighbouring country because they spend lot of money. But the questioning by the police deters them. I recall that once a Pakistani who picked me up from the airport was upset by the police car that followed. He stopped the car and asked the driver why he was pursuing the car. He said in reply that he was not to blame. He was doing what his superior had asked him to do. My friend, who was a leading editor, knew the military superiors. The result was that the car pursuing us increased the distance but it did not give up doing so.
Assume that Yadav was a spy of sorts but what could he have spied. Technology has advanced so much that through a satellite you can read from air even the digits painted on car number plate. Therefore, Yadav’s guilt would be considered Pakistan’s revenge for some other deed. The Pakistan announcement did not say when the trial would commence and how long it would continue before the verdict was handed down. In the case of Yadav, the announcement mentioned that the sentencing had been ratified by Chief of the Army Staff Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa. It has not been spelled out why and on what ground.
Since Pakistan has denied even counsellor facilities after as many as fourteen requests made, it is difficult to know the reason for death sentence to Yadav. Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj has warned that if the sentence to Yadav was carried out, it would be an unfriendly act. The recent surgical strike should be a warning. New Delhi can go to any extent.
Both India and Pakistan should sit across the table and decide the matters between them once for all. Kashmir may be separated from other problems and discussed at a separate committee. There is no reason that why two cannot do business or set up joint ventures. In fact, goodwill would be generated if they could only ease the visa facilities for tourists to begin with. Unofficial trade which is going on at the borders can be allowed to increase. Official trade would bring in all kind of problems because both countries have a long list of grievances against each other.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said recently that there was no reason why India and Pakistan could not live as friendly countries. The fact of partition is seventy years ago and whatever the wounds inflicted by both of them is a painful story. One million people were killed in the forced migration, the biggest in the world. Thirty to forty million people had to find new homes because they did not feel safe at their places after partition. Yadav is not the last person to face death sentence by military tribunal sets a new precedents, of trial of civilians by military court. Apparently, political parties are not happy and they have tried to abolish military courts. The matter came up before the Pakistan National Assembly only a few days ago. There was a fierce opposition from democratic and liberal parties. But unfortunately military tribunals have come to acquire a legal sanction.
Since Pakistan has a large say in the SAARC it may be prudent for other countries in the region to discuss some kind of common market and ways to establish even unofficial methods for trade and business. At present the business through Dubai is large but expensive. Agreed that Kashmir is a running sore, but some ways should be found other than pelting the stones to sort out the problem. Too much emphasis on the Islamic aspect is encouraging only the communal parties and postponing the solution. Yadav’s sentence has become another problem between the two countries. The efforts should be how to lessen such instances of sentence- at- will. They are not conducive to peace in region.
Source: pakobserver.net/the-espionage-bug/
----
Baby Steps
By Mahir Ali
03-May-17
ON his first visit to the White House after winning last November’s election, Donald Trump was informed by Barack Obama that his biggest initial headache as president would be North Korea.
Trump looked uncomprehending at the time, or perhaps he was just programmed to be sceptical about anything Obama told him. And truth be told, he’s had plenty of headaches in the 100-plus days since his inauguration, not least the realisation that wielding presidential power is a whole lot trickier than pretending to control a real-estate empire.
But North Korea has lately indeed been at the helm of recent concerns, and some observers even see the Tomahawk missile strikes in Syria and the deployment in Afghanistan of the biggest conventional bomb in the American arsenal as warnings to Pyongyang.
The dispatch of an aircraft carrier group to the region and the setting up in South Korea of the THAAD anti-missile system have inevitably exacerbated fears of renewed hostilities on the Korean Peninsula, where the 1953 armistice — following a devastating conflict that threatened to evolve into a third world war, with the US seriously toying with the idea of repeating the Hiroshima-Nagasaki experiment — never evolved into a peace agreement.
The habitual Washington mantra is that all options are on the table, and it has been reported that the US has contemplated the idea of knocking out a North Korean missile during a test. But, as the Americans acknowledge, there’s no knowing exactly how Kim Jong-un might react to such a provocation. He would, in fact, have only two options: either to pretend it never happened, or to retaliate.
What form that retaliation might take is, again, uncharted territory. Missiles with some kind of a nuclear warhead could be lobbed in the direction of South Korea or Japan, the primary US allies within reach of North Korean ordnance. Could Kim’s rockets reach Australia? It’s unlikely, but no one’s quite sure, and the government in Canberra has lately been busy finding a slot in the posterior of the Trump administration.
One of the rewards is the first meeting tomorrow between Trump and Australia’s beleaguered prime minister Malcolm Turnbull — aboard a warship off New York, which may have some symbolic significance. Pyongyang has been scathing towards Australian foreign minister Julie Bishop’s kowtowing to Uncle Sam during US Vice-President Mike Pence’s recent tour of the region. Notwithstanding a degree of trepidation in Australia over the prospect of a conflict, though, there has been no spurt in demand for nuclear bunkers.
Australia has lately been more torn than before over its essential trading partnership with China on the one hand, and its traditional racial and ideological affinity with the US, which led it to obligatorily participate not just in the Korean and Vietnam wars but also in the conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. Trump’s unexpected bromance with China’s president Xi Jinping may have come as a pleasant surprise to Australia after all the flak that Beijing attracted from the Republican nominee during the American presidential campaign, including the charge that it was raping America, but it’s likely to be somewhat disconcerted by persistent indications that the US leader at least grudgingly admires his North Korean counterpart.
Just a few days after declaring that his nation would tackle North Korea on its own if China proved unhelpful, Trump described Kim Jong-un as a “smart cookie” who had at a tender age outsmarted potential rivals in the Pyongyang hierarchy (he executed an uncle in 2013, and is believed earlier this year to have pronounced the death sentence on an estranged half-brother, among other purges) and, in the words of White House spokesman Sean Spicer, led his country forward.
In a Bloomberg interview on Monday, Trump went further, saying he would be “honoured” to meet Kim in the right circumstances. Somewhat surprisingly, this is not inconsistent with his campaign rhetoric, in which he suggested he would be happy to have a chat with Kim if he came over, even though he might feel obliged to treat his guest to a hamburger at the conference table rather than a state dinner.
What often gets left out of the media discourse is the crisis in South Korea, whose recently impeached and dethroned president Park Geun-hye, the daughter of a notorious military dictator, faces life imprisonment on corruption charges, with next Monday’s presidential election expected to favour the relatively progressive Moon Jae-in, who is ambivalent about THAAD and prefers the idea of engagement with the estranged North.
Trump and Kim, meanwhile, have at least one thing in common: the appearance of overgrown, frequently petulant, infants. The prospect of their bonding in a potential Mar-a-Lago playgroup may well be the best bet for continued peace on the Korean Peninsula.
Source: dawn.com/news/1330700/baby-steps
----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/the-new-cold-war-syria/d/110999