Monday, August 3, 2020

From Far & Near: Review of International Affairs: August 2020

From Far & Near

Review of International Affairs: August 2020

  • Current Situation in Kashmir
  • US Troop Withdrawal from Germany
  • Historic Role of the US Vice President

By Shashi P.B.B. Malla

The Lost Charm of One of the Most Beautiful Places on Earth

This Wednesday, August 5 marked the first anniversary of New Delhi revoking Indian-administered Kashmir’s (IAK) special status. Modi’s government had split the state into two union territories – Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh.

Considering that the whole of the former princely state of Kashmir (with the British Raj having special rights on defence and foreign affairs) was disputed territory – among India, Pakistan and China – India’s surprise announcement resulted in international controversy.

Pakistan which holds on to the areas Gilgit, Hunza and Azad Kashmir, vehemently opposed the move. Prime Minister Imran Khan calling Kashmir’s abrogation “brazen and egregious”. However, Islamabad’s attempts to internationalize the issue did not succeed, with Washington and other world powers largely following India’s familiar line that Kashmir, i.e. IAK was an internal domestic issue (Foreign Policy Guide/Ravi Agrawal, July 30).

Current Situation

Domestically, New Delhi’s move remains popular among an increasingly [ultra] nationalistic Hindu population [as with the current standoff with China]. However, a dispassionate assessment of that major decision reveals that few of its objectives have been achieved.

Last year, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar had argued – as rationalization for the draconian move – that the previous political system [as functioning in J & K] had “denied economic opportunities and social gains for the masses.” Today, it cannot be argued that things have gotten better. A promised summit to encourage investment in Kashmir has not taken place.

Of course, the coronavirus pandemic has made any reforms difficult to implement. Modi’s nationalistic government claims the security situation in Kashmir has improved, pointing to a 36 percent decline in terrorism-related incidents between January-July 2020 compared to the same period last year. But this may also be ascribed to the pandemic.

Mostly, the information and communication situation within and about the region is quite dire.

Kashmiri leaders who have expressed outrage including former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti. Another former chief minister, Omar Abdullah, was released only on March 24. He made the pertinent point: “The polity of the rest of India effectively forgot about us…It is shortsighted to believe that Kashmiris have quietly accepted what happened…”

At the same time there is no denying the fact that the political establishment of the Valley failed in their leadership. They enjoyed the fruits of office, but failed to deliver to the people and promote all-round and sustained development to all the regions.

Modi is on the horns of a dilemma. For Kashmir to realize any of the economic goals promised, the central government needs to open up the region. There must also be free and fair media and consistent internet access. The government must above all build confidence among business and institutions. The potential for domestic and international tourism remains great. After all, a Mughal emperor lauded the Vale of Kashmir as the paradise on earth. But at the same time, the opening up would increase the likelihood of protests and potential violence.

In the meantime, terrorist attacks from Pakistan-administered-Kashmir – called Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK) by India – has not let up, leading to among other things, the recent killing of an Indian Gurkha.

America Attempts to Give Germany a Black Eye

The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw nearly 12,000 combat troops from Germany has come under heavy bipartisan attack in the US Senate, amid warnings it would disrupt US alliances.

The Secretary of State (SoS), Mike Pompeo had to fend off insistent questions in the Senate last Thursday. The glaring highlight of his questioning was his barefaced lie that he had fought along the West-East German border when he was stationed in West Germany as an army lieutenant in a tank regimentfrom 1986-1991 (The Guardian, July 30).

Any student of international relations knows that there was no fighting along the Iron Curtain during the Cold War. He must have been aware fully that the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989-90 after the Fall of the Berlin Wall. His claim is a colossal shame for the SoS and shows that he is as shifty as his boss, the POTUS!

The Pentagon’s claim that the withdrawal was ordered as part of an overall strategic repositioning of US forces abroad is complete hogwash. After all, Donald Trump made clear that he saw it as punishment of Germany for not spending enough on defence and American taxpayers being “taken for suckers”, while Germany was not contributing its fair share to NATO. Trump is also clearly resentful of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s qualities of leadership and her standing in NATO and the European Union (EU), not to mention her outstanding success in overcoming the coronavirus pandemic.

Actually, Germany has recently increased its defence spending, and has gone on record to be on course to achieve the 2 percent NATO GDP target for defence expenditure set for 2024.

By a quirk of current history, Belgium and Italy, where most of the troops are to be deployed, spend even less than Germany on defence as a share of national income.

Trump’s decision was driven not by US vital national interests or NATO strategic planning, but by personal animus towards Germany and its chancellor. It was reprisal against Merkel for her decision, among others, not to attend the planned G-7 summit at Camp David at the height of the pandemic, which effectively shot down Trump’s plan. She was also dead against re-introducing Russia to the G-7 [making it a G-8] and inviting Vladimir Putin – Trump’s putative friend and benefactor – to the confabulation. Russia had been expelled after invading and annexing

The US Vice-President: Perception & Reality

With the creation of the office of the Vice-President, the fathers of the U.S. Constitution designed one of the most intriguing official posts in government.

The choice by Joe Biden of his vice-presidential running mate has been anticipated with great excitement, not only in America. This time around, the position is highly coveted, not least because of Joe Biden’s age – 77 years. He will be a one-term president and his VP will have the best chance to be the 47th POTUS of the United States.

However, previous VP’s [and candidates]have not been quite so effusive about the potentiality of being so close, yet so far from one of the most powerful heads of state and government in the world.

John Adams, the first vice-president in U.S. history, had to play second fiddle to the great George Washington and set the tone from the start. In 1793, he wrote to his wife Abigail that

“my Country has in its Wisdom contrived for me

the most insignificant Office that ever the

Invention of man contrived or his Imagination

conceived.”

(CFR/Council on Foreign Relations, July 30)

There were persistent doubts about the benefit of being vice president and whether it was a good career move.

Thus, in 1840 Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster turned down the offer to be William Henry Harrison’s running mate, saying:

“I do not propose to be buried until I am really

dead and in my coffin.”

However, in hindsight it was a supremely foolish choice, because Harrison died just a month after taking office and Webster would have succeeded him according to the Constitution.

The great Theodore Roosevelt [“Teddy”] had no qualms about being William McKinley’s running mate, but his enthusiasm for the job was limited:

“I would a great deal rather be anything, say

professor of history, than Vice-President.”

As president after McKinley’s assassination, he successfully engineered the US bid to build the Panama Canal and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906 for negotiating the end of the Russo-Japanese War.

Thomas Marshall, who served under Woodrow Wilson [one of the architects of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations] compared being vice-president to being

“a man in a cataleptic fit; he cannot speak, he

cannot move; he suffers no pain; he is

perfectly conscious of all that goes on, but

has no part in it.”

John Nance Garner, who served two terms as vice-president under the inimitable Franklin Delano Roosevelt [“FDR”] – after serving as speaker of the House of Representatives – categorized his decision to accept the job as

“the worst damn fool mistake I ever made.”

Not only that, “Cactus Jack” as he was popularly known, provided the world with perhaps the best known summary of what it means to be number two in the American political system:

It’s “not worth a bucket of warm piss.”

FDR’s third VP, Harry Truman [later as president, mastermind of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan] was equally dismissive. Surveying the history of the position/role, Truman couldn’t find anything uplifting:

“They were about as useful as a cow’s fifth teat.”

The US – VP Sweepstakes

For what it is worth, the following is the present writer’s speculation/hopes about former VP Biden’s pick, at the time of writing [morning, August 4, 2020]:

  1. Senator Kamala Harris of California
  2. Representative Karen Bass, Chair of the

Congressional Black Caucus

  1. Dr. Susan Rice, former US Ambassador to the United Nations.

Even if not chosen, these distinguished ladies will definitely go on to play an important role in the American political system – Senator Harris as Attorney General, Ms. Bass as Speaker of the House and Dr. Rice as Secretary of State.

The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com

No comments:

Post a Comment