Source: IMPHAL FREE PRESS
Posted: 2008-08-20

Although it is totally objectionable that Russian troops should enter Georgia territory, once a part of the Soviet Union, one cannot help in some way being sympathetic to Russia’s anxiety. Although the pretext for the “invasion� is something else, at the core, although not overtly stated, is the missile defence system the United States is setting up in Georgia and the move to absorb Georgia into the NATO. The US of course explains that this move is directed against possible attacks by Iran, but this disguise is too thin and even it would not expect Russia to fall for it. Russia indeed has retorted rhetorically to the US, saying how it would like it if Russia were to also set up a similar missile battery in Mexico claiming it is not meant for use against the US. This is a tricky question in diplomacy. There is no doubt that Georgia as a sovereign state is allowed to make friends with any country it pleases, and it also has a right not to be invaded by another country. But the question is, should such freedom of sovereign countries be at the cost of causing insecurity to regional neighbours and upsetting regional stability? Shouldn’t the intent of international diplomacy be predicated by peace and stability considerations and not the familiar Cold War strategies where every move is meant to silently and insidiously undermine the rival’s confidence? After all the unparalleled mayhem that the world has been through in the 20th Century, isn’t it still time for Machiavellianism to give way to Gandhigiri?
To make the scenario a little more immediate, how would India have liked the US installing a missile battery in Bhutan saying their object is not India but China, or China to have developed an air force base in Nepal? Conversely, how would China have liked India to have a similar missile delivery system in Vietnam? The answers are obvious, and in fact behind the show of bonhomie, there is still this element of suspicion and disguised hostility in the befriending of the military junta in Burma first by China and then followed by India. It is also not altogether insignificant that the biggest loser in this case is neither India nor China but a gritty lady called Aung San Suu Kyi and her pro-democracy movement. It does seem, when it comes to hard diplomacy, even democracy becomes a dispensable commodity, easily replaced by despotic dictators and autocratic feudal rulers. Economic alliances yes, but we are of the opinion that there ought be an international law or convention which prohibits military alliances aimed at disturbing regional stability.
By contrast, developments in South Asia region have not been altogether negative in the past decade. Yesterday the President Gen. Parvez Musharraf of Pakistan bent to popular will and resigned, removing hurdles before the popular government the country has recently elected. There however is a long road ahead before democracy and its values set root in Pakistan, but as commentators have pointed out, the country has a priceless asset in its fiercely independent media, which some say is even more critical than the Indian media, much less controlled as it is by the corporate culture. Earlier Bhutan’s King Jigme Singye Wangchuck voluntarily stepped down and allowed the kingdom to transition into democracy. As to how healthy the Bhutanese democracy is, it is not altogether certain yet. For one thing democracy here is still in its infancy, and for another the country is not exactly known for an independent media, making it difficult for the world to assess or separate official propaganda from facts on the ground. The third country in the region to decide to switch to democracy is Nepal. Nepal’s case may be of much more interest to the Northeast, and in particular Manipur, for the multiplicity of ethnicity that make up the country is pretty similar to the situation in the state. While the Nepal monarchy lasted, autocratic rule ensure dissent is strictly denied. As for instance, the numerous ethnic communities of the country were not allowed to speak in their respective dialects publicly and only the national language, Nepali, was officially allowed. In the then theocratic Hindu state, beef eating even by traditionally beef eating communities were prohibited. Untouchability was also an accepted institutions. It remains to be seen how the former Maoist guerrilla ideologue, who has since been sworn in as Prime Minister, Pushpa Kamal Dahal, or affectionately ‘Prachanda’ manages to forge unity amidst these differences. The challenge before him, and how he tackles them, will surely be closely watched in many quarters in strife torn Manipur.
 

Related Stories

Tell a Friend | Printable version | Post a Comment