Wednesday, 31 July 2024

Middle East Crisis May Last Long

M A Hossain,

After a recent rocket attack on a soccer field in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, the question of whether the Middle East is on the verge of an all-out war has captured global attention. This attack, which resulted in the death of 12 people amid the ongoing Gaza conflict, has escalated tensions to a critical level. In response, Israeli forces carried out a drone strike in southern Lebanon, resulting in casualties. This attack was directly attributed to Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese armed group. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was in the United States at the time, swiftly returned to Israel and, after a meeting with the security cabinet, declared, "Hezbollah will have to pay a heavy price for this attack—a price they have never had to pay before."

This incident brings to mind a provocative international media headline from the previous month: "Now is the time to bomb Lebanon." The possibility of an all-out war between Israel and Lebanon has since been a hot topic in various media outlets. The world anxiously watches to see if another major conflict is about to erupt in this already volatile region.

It is often said that when the world order and the power of global authorities are in decline, the drums of war begin to sound. This observation seems increasingly accurate. Over recent decades, we have seen sporadic conflicts erupt in various regions. However, the ongoing Ukraine war, which began in 2022, and the Gaza war that started on October 7 of last year, have collectively pushed the world closer to a significant global conflict. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza have starkly exposed the West's double standards and the underlying political maneuvers it employs to maintain its status as the world's policing authority.

These two wars have caused many other parts of the world to edge towards war or conflict. The current situation is arguably the most fragile the world has experienced since the end of the Cold War. Although tensions between Eastern and Western bloc powers are at an all-time high, the catastrophic specter of another world war has not yet materialized. Nevertheless, the fear remains.

The Middle East, in particular, has a long history of conflicts that are difficult to extinguish once ignited. This is a major cause for concern. As regional powers continually face off, there is no assurance that these conflicts will remain contained. Instead, in my opinion, if Donald Trump were to become the President of the USA, his ultra pro-Israel stance might usher in a new era where Middle Eastern conflicts could erupt unpredictably and escalate rapidly.

Examining the global situation over the past two decades reveals that countless lives have been lost in numerous bloody conflicts. Wars continue to rage in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Sudan. Moreover, the dire prospect of 'geopolitical and technological changes' exacerbating superpower conflicts looms large. Modern warfare has evolved beyond traditional battles; today, conflicts are fueled by advanced technologies such as drones, robots, and private military contractors. These developments have made urban areas the primary battlegrounds, as seen in Aleppo, Syria, and Mosul, Iraq. This new form of 'hybrid warfare' blurs the lines between combatants and civilians, making conflicts more devastating and harder to resolve.

Historically, the world has rarely been without war and conflict. However, recent wars seem particularly interminable. These prolonged conflicts are especially detrimental to the developing world, which is disproportionately affected. The current global environment is often described as Volatile, Uncertain, Complex, and Ambiguous. This turmoiled world is becoming increasingly challenging for developing countries, which find themselves embroiled in conflicts not of their making. These nations are struggling to navigate through an unpredictable landscape where the pathway to peace and stability remains unclear.

The dynamics of superpower involvement in regional conflicts further complicate the situation. The United States, Russia, and China are often seen as key players in many of these conflicts, providing military aid, political support, or even direct intervention. For instance, the U.S. has a longstanding alliance with Israel, while Russia and Iran have been key supporters of the Syrian government and Hezbollah. China's growing influence in the Middle East adds another layer of complexity, particularly through its Belt and Road Initiative, which aims to enhance regional connectivity and trade.

These superpowers are driven by strategic interests that often clash with each other, creating a precarious balance of power. The involvement of these external actors can both escalate and mitigate conflicts, depending on their actions and diplomatic engagements. This geopolitical chess game makes the prediction of future conflicts even more challenging, as alliances and enmities can shift rapidly.

The human cost of these conflicts is staggering. The wars in Syria, Yemen, and Iraq have resulted in millions of deaths and displacements, creating one of the worst refugee crises in modern history. In Gaza, the humanitarian situation is dire with civilians especially, the women and children are bearing the brunt of the ongoing violence. The international community has often been criticized for its inadequate response to these crises, struggling to provide effective humanitarian aid and failing to broker lasting peace agreements.

The psychological impact on affected populations is profound, with generations growing up in environments of violence and instability. This perpetuates a cycle of trauma and conflict, making long-term peace and development an elusive goal. The international community's role in addressing these humanitarian crises is crucial, but often hampered by political interests and logistical challenges.

Media coverage and propaganda play significant roles in shaping public perception and international response to these conflicts. The portrayal of events can influence public opinion and government policies, sometimes exacerbating tensions. Biased or sensationalized reporting can fuel hostilities and deepen divisions, while responsible journalism and accurate reporting can promote understanding and peace.

Social media has emerged as a powerful tool in modern conflicts, used both for disseminating information and spreading propaganda. It allows for real-time updates but also enables the rapid spread of misinformation. The challenge lies in navigating this complex media landscape to discern truth from falsehood and promote narratives that encourage peace rather than conflict.

The world stands at a precarious juncture, with tensions in the Middle East threatening to spill over into a broader conflict. The fragility of the current global order, combined with ongoing wars and emerging technological threats, creates a volatile environment where all-out war could become a reality. As regional and global powers continue to jostle for dominance, the international community must remain vigilant and proactive in seeking diplomatic solutions to prevent further escalation and ensure a more stable and peaceful world.

The stakes have never been higher. The potential for conflict in the Middle East serves as a microcosm of global instability. Preventing a descent into widespread warfare requires concerted efforts from all stakeholders—nations, international organizations, and civil society. Through dialogue, diplomacy, and a commitment to humanitarian principles, the world can strive to avert the catastrophe of another global conflict and work towards a more peaceful future.


M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. The Nation, Pak : 31 July, 24

2. Daily Observer, BD : 31 July, 24

3. The Arabian Post, UAE : 31 July, 24

4. Eurasia Review, USA : 31 July, 24

5. Pakistan Today, Pak : 02 Aug,24

6. Rusvesna.su, Russia : 02 Aug,24

7. Daily Lead Pakistan, Pak : 01Aug,24


  

Tuesday, 16 July 2024

How Assassination Bid on Trump Impacts Election

M A Hossain, 


The attempted assassination of Donald Trump opens a dark new chapter in America’s cursed story of political violence, shaking a nation already deeply estranged during one of the most tense periods of its political history. The targeting of a former president at a campaign rally just days before he accepts the Republican nomination is, by definition, an attack on democracy and the right of each American to choose their leaders.

The presumptive the Grand Old Party(GOP) nominee, Donald Trump was on stage, with supporters as usual behind him in bleachers holding up posters and wearing their 'Make America Great Again(MAGA)' regalia, when shots rang out. Trump flinched, then grabbed the side of his face and disappeared behind his podium as people started to scream and the surreal nature of what was happening began to dawn. The ex-president later said that he felt a bullet rip through the skin of his ear, which poured with blood as he was rushed from the scene. The shots fired by a gunman on a roof outside the perimeter of his rally at Butler, Pennsylvania, came a fraction of an inch from being a lot worse.

While Trump is not currently serving as president, this assassination bid underscores the ever-present threat that always hangs over the office and those who run for it—and especially for those who claim it. President Joe Biden is the 46th president, and four of his predecessors have been killed while in office, most recently John F. Kennedy in 1963. The fact that Trump was attacked ends a 40-year period in which many have assumed that the Secret Service’s expertise had greatly reduced the potential for such outrages—and will cast a pall that will last for years.

Trump’s targeting during a presidential campaign drew comparisons to the assassination of Democratic candidate Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, a blood-soaked year that also saw the killing of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. and violence at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, which will host the same event this year. But political violence hasn’t stopped since then. In 2011, then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat, was left with brain damage after she was shot in the head at an event in which six people were killed. In 2017, a gunman opened fire at a Republican congressional baseball practice, shooting then-House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and three others. The nation is also still processing the attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters on January 6, 2021.

This shocking developments added another volatile political element to a wild and unpredictable election year that has recently seen Biden—the oldest president in history—fighting to save his nomination after a disastrous debate performance and the conviction of Trump, 78, by a New York jury and his vows to wage a second term of “retribution” if he’s reelected. The only appropriate initial reaction to the horror was relief that a contender for the presidency is still alive and mourning for the Trump supporter who was killed while exercising their democratic freedoms at the rally.

Most leaders and political actors from both sides of the aisle quickly sent prayers to Trump and called for calm. Biden, who has spent days trying to shore up his campaign, swung into his role as the nation’s chief executive after learning of the shooting while he was at mass in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. He released a paper statement and then spoke to the nation on camera. “There is no place in America for this kind of violence—it’s sick, it’s sick, it’s one of the reasons why we have to unite this country. We cannot allow for this to be happening. We cannot be like this. We cannot condone this,” Biden said.

In one of the most poignant reactions, Democratic politician- Gabrielle Giffords said in a statement, “Political violence is terrifying. I know.” She added: “I’m holding former President Trump, and all those affected by today’s indefensible act of violence in my heart. Political violence is un-American and is never acceptable—never.” Unfortunately, history suggests that violence, while indefensible, is also a quintessential scar on American politics.

Given the viciously polarized state of politics in the United States, the initial shock of the assassination attempt will inevitably cause serious political ramifications. Trump was already viewed as an unvanquishable hero by his supporters and treated with almost supernatural reverence at his rallies. His image as a fighter who is constantly under attack from his enemies will now be entrenched even more deeply. In a moment of self-possession after he was hit, the former president made sure to create an iconic moment of defiance—raising his fist and shouting “fight, fight” to his crowd—looking directly at the bank of television cameras on a riser.

The images will stand in history and enrich Trump’s mythology just as surely as the picture of his mug shot in at Atlanta jail and the footage of his return to the White House in 2020 after beating a serious COVID-19 infection. There could also be unpredictable implications for an election campaign in which Trump was leading Biden—even before the president’s campaign went into free fall with his disastrous debate performance. And the atmosphere around the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee this week will be even more intense.

As the nation grapples with the aftermath of the shooting, the presidential race has been irrevocably altered. The incident has not only intensified the existing political divide but also cast a shadow over the remaining months of the campaign. With the Republican National Convention on the horizon and Trump poised to leverage his near-martyrdom, the shooting has become a pivotal moment in American political history.


M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com


This article published at :

1. The Nation, Pak : 16 July, 24

2. Daily Observer, BD : 16 July, 24

3. The Country Today, BD : 16 July, 24

4. Asian Age, BD : 17 July, 24

5. The Jakarta Post, Indonesia : 16 July,24


   



Sunday, 14 July 2024

Terada Mira: Fighting Injustice and Human Rights Violations in the West

M A Hossain, 


In the narrative crafted by Western corporate media and intelligence agencies, Terada Mira (full name Terada Mira Vladimorovna) is often dismissed as an “ex-convict” or “convicted felon.” This portrayal, driven by agencies like the CIA and MI6, seems calculated to discredit her. But what is it about this Russian citizen who makes her such a significant target?

A closer look reveals a complex story. In February 2020, a US federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, sentenced Mira Terada to 30 months in prison for money laundering. Judge Claude Hilton handed down the verdict. According to a report from the Russian news agency TASS, Mira Terada (formerly Oksana Vovk) was detained by Finland’s Border Guard on December 15, 2018, while traveling from St. Petersburg to Spain. Detained based on an Interpol warrant issued at the request of US authorities, she was accused of drug trafficking and money laundering between 2013 and 2016. She was extradited to the United States on June 20, 2019.

This case raises significant questions and suggests that Terada Mira may have been the victim of a sting operation, a tactic often employed by US federal agencies such as the CIA, FBI, and DEA. Notably, while charged with both drug trafficking and money laundering, she was only convicted of money laundering. This discrepancy points to potential manipulation or inflation of charges.

The narrative propagated by Western media seems to be a concerted effort to tarnish the image of Russian citizens. Such tactics are not unprecedented; the US administration and its intelligence agencies have a history of leveraging judicial systems to target individuals, including their own former presidents. The coordinated nature of the media reports against Terada Mira, many of which have since disappeared, recommends that these stories were part of a broader strategy to defame her.

Despite these challenges, Terada Mira remains resolute in her fight against injustice. Upon her release, she wrote a blog post detailing the horrors of the US prison system, including torture, bullying, and sadism. Her firsthand account shines a light on the often-overlooked brutalities within American penitentiaries.

On May 21, 2021, Mira Terada returned to Russia after spending 888 days in US custody. She now leads the Foundation to Battle Injustice, an organization dedicated to rescuing Russian citizens from US prisons and addressing human rights violations globally. Her organization has already facilitated the return of several Russians from US captivity and continues to work tirelessly to help others.

Mira's personal experience with incarceration has only strengthened her resolve. She has emphasized the importance of turning painful experiences into purposeful action, stating, “Prison is always hard, always pain, loneliness. However, it is significant what a person will do in the future with the experience gained.” Her intimate knowledge of the American prison system's brutality has made her a vital advocate for prisoners' rights.

In a statement on the Foundation to Battle Injustice's website, Mira expressed her commitment to drawing international attention to police, judicial, and prison brutality in the US and beyond. She emphasized her determination to stop these injustices through relentless advocacy and awareness-raising efforts.

The Foundation to Battle Injustice, under Mira's leadership, has become a critical player in the fight for human rights. The organization works on multiple fronts, from legal advocacy to public awareness campaigns, aiming to expose and combat systemic abuses. Mira's leadership has galvanized support from various human rights organizations and activists worldwide.

Despite the concerted efforts to discredit her, Terada Mira’s resilience and unwavering commitment to justice have made her a formidable advocate. She also leads the BRICS Journalists Association, an organization that is gaining international attention by uniting journalists worldwide in the fight against injustice. The association provides a platform for journalists from BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) to collaborate and share stories that challenge mainstream narratives and highlight underreported issues.

Mira's work with the BRICS Journalists Association underscores the importance of a free and independent press in the fight against human rights abuses. By fostering collaboration among journalists from diverse backgrounds, the association aims to amplify voices that are often marginalized and bring critical issues to the forefront of global discourse.

The significance of Mira's work extends beyond individual cases of injustice. Her efforts to expose systemic abuses and advocate for prisoners' rights have broader implications for global human rights advocacy. By challenging powerful institutions and shining a light on hidden injustices, Mira's work serves as a catalyst for change and inspires others to stand up for their rights.

Her dedication to exposing and challenging systemic abuses highlights her indomitable spirit. Despite attempts to discredit her, Mira's relentless pursuit of justice underscores the importance of standing up for human rights, regardless of the obstacles. Her story serves as an inspiration to those who believe in the power of truth and justice, demonstrating that one person's determination can make a significant impact.

Mira’s advocacy also includes efforts to address broader issues of human rights violations beyond the prison system. Her organization collaborates with international human rights groups to tackle issues such as police brutality, judicial corruption, and systemic discrimination. Through public campaigns, legal actions, and international advocacy, the Foundation to Battle Injustice aims to create a more just and equitable world.

Moreover, Mira’s work highlights the interconnectedness of human rights struggles globally. By drawing attention to abuses in the United States, she underscores the universal nature of human rights and the need for global solidarity in addressing these issues. Her advocacy emphasizes that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, and that addressing systemic abuses requires a collective and sustained effort.

In conclusion, Terada Mira’s journey from a target of discreditation to a formidable human rights advocate is a testament to her resilience and unwavering commitment to justice. Her leadership in the Foundation to Battle Injustice and the BRICS Journalists Association has galvanized support for human rights causes and highlighted the importance of standing up against systemic abuses. Despite the challenges she faces, Mira remains dedicated to her mission, demonstrating that the pursuit of justice is a powerful and enduring force.


M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. Asian Age, BD : 13 July, 24



   



Saturday, 6 July 2024

Challenges for Biden and Trump's Comeback: Age, Politics, and Global Impact

M A Hossain,

Joe Biden, the incumbent President of the United States, recently faced one of his most challenging moments on the political stage. In a debate against his formidable opponent, Donald Trump, Biden’s age seemed to catch up with him in a way that was unmistakable to tens of millions of viewers. The spectacle of this showdown highlighted not only the intense scrutiny politicians endure but also the merciless nature of public opinion and media.

Biden’s struggle during the debate was a stark reminder of how age can betray even the most seasoned leaders at critical junctures. In this highly anticipated and widely watched event, Biden failed to perform convincingly both as an attacker and a defender. After the debate, Biden admitted his bad performance. He appeared unable to maintain the composure and sharpness that are crucial in such high-stakes encounters. This public faltering transformed what might have been seen as a minor setback into a perceived catastrophe.

The modern political landscape is unforgiving, especially under the relentless spotlight of social media, where commentators and critics can be particularly harsh. The slightest sign of weakness is often amplified, with slanderous and wolfish attacks that can sway public opinion dramatically. This environment is particularly unforgiving for a president seeking re-election, as any perceived decline in capability can have dire consequences for their campaign.

Within the Democratic Party, there is growing concern about Biden’s ability to lead the charge into the next election. Prominent voices, including The New York Times, have suggested that Biden should consider stepping aside. This sentiment has been echoed by various party members who fear that his continued presence might lead to an unavoidable defeat. However, replacing a sitting president in the middle of a campaign is not a simple task. It involves complex political maneuvers and would require Biden’s own agreement to step down—a challenging prospect for any politician.

Jill Biden, the president’s wife, has been seen by some as a potential influencer who might persuade her husband to make this tough decision for the greater good of the party and the country. Similarly, former President Barack Obama is also expected to play a crucial role in guiding Biden through this difficult period.

Convincing a lifelong politician to retire is no easy feat. The allure of power and the prestige of office are hard to relinquish, especially for someone who has spent decades in public service, culminating in the presidency. The psychological attachment to power is profound, making the prospect of stepping down akin to accepting defeat. This was exemplified in an anecdote where a wise politician, despite his advanced age, could not easily detach himself from the presidential palace-a symbol of his enduring connection to power.

The recent debate not only highlighted Biden’s personal challenges but also underscored the broader issues facing America. In an era of rapid technological advancements and geopolitical shifts, the country appears to be struggling to put forth a younger, dynamic candidate for the highest office. This has led to deeper divisions within the nation and increased uncertainty on the global stage.

The potential re-election of Trump adds another layer of complexity to this scenario. Known for his unpredictable policies and unorthodox approach, Trump represents a significant departure from traditional political norms. His return to the White House would likely exacerbate existing tensions both domestically and internationally. Allies and adversaries alike are wary of his volatile leadership style, which contrasts sharply with Biden’s institutional approach.

The stakes in the upcoming election are incredibly high, not just for the United States but for the world at large. Trump’s potential victory raises questions about America’s role in global affairs, particularly concerning relations with Russia and China. Trump’s perceived lack of seriousness about the “Russian threat” and his focus on China as the primary adversary suggest a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy priorities.

In Europe, there is widespread concern about the implications of a Trump presidency. Leaders worry that Trump’s deal-making mentality might lead to compromises that could undermine European security, particularly in the face of Russian aggression. The fear of a repeat of the appeasement policies of the past looms large, with many drawing parallels to the pre-World War II era.

In the Middle East, the situation remains volatile with ongoing conflicts in Gaza and the potential for a wider war involving Lebanon. The prospect of a Trump-led administration complicates efforts to achieve a lasting peace, particularly given his controversial decision to assassinate Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Negotiating with Iran under a Trump presidency would likely be fraught with difficulties, casting a shadow over any potential nuclear agreement.

As the 2024 election approaches, the political landscape is fraught with uncertainty. Biden’s apparent vulnerability and the prospect of Trump’s return to power have created a highly charged atmosphere. The decisions made in the coming months will not only shape the future of American politics but also have far-reaching implications for global stability and security.

In this high-stakes environment, the American electorate faces a crucial choice. Will they opt for continuity with Biden, despite the challenges of his age and performance, or will they take a gamble on Trump, with all the unpredictability that entails? The outcome of this decision will reverberate far beyond the borders of the United States, influencing the course of international relations for years to come.


M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com


This article published at :

1. The Nation, Pak : 05 July, 24

2. Weekly Blitz, BD : 03 July, 24

3. Pakistan Today, Pak : 07 July, 24

4. Daily Lead Pakistan, Pak : 06 July, 24

5. Eurasia Review, USA : 04 July, 24

6. Daily Times, Pak : 05 July, 24


   



Wednesday, 3 July 2024

Rishi Sunak Condemns 'Racist Slur' from Reform UK Party Member

M A Hossain,

In a dramatic and deeply unsettling development on the British political scene, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has expressed his profound hurt and anger following a racist slur directed at him by a now-suspended member of the anti-immigration Reform UK party, led by Nigel Farage. This incident, which came to light through an undercover investigation by broadcaster Channel 4, has cast a shadow over Farage’s already controversial campaign for a parliamentary seat in Clacton-on-Sea, East England.

Sunak, the United Kingdom’s first Prime Minister of color, did not hold back in his response. “My two daughters have to see and hear Reform people who campaign for Nigel Farage calling me an effing p***,” he stated, deliberately repeating the offensive term used against him to underscore the severity of the issue. He emphasized the emotional impact, saying, “It hurts and it makes me angry, and I think he has some questions to answer.” Sunak’s forthright condemnation of the incident highlights the significant personal and public impact of such racial slurs, especially when directed at a figure of his stature. His decision to explicitly call out the racist language used is a powerful stance against bigotry and intolerance in British politics.

Nigel Farage, a hard-right populist known for his staunch anti-immigration stance, has seen his campaign for a parliamentary seat increasingly mired in controversy. Farage, who has previously failed in seven attempts to become an MP, now faces a major crisis within his party. The Channel 4 investigation revealed at least two Reform UK organizers making racist, Islamophobic, and homophobic comments. These organizers were recorded in Clacton-on-Sea, the very constituency where Farage is contesting. Andrew Parker, one of the campaigners, used a racial slur against Sunak, described Islam as “the most disgusting cult,” and suggested that mosques should be converted into pubs. He also shockingly advocated for army recruits to use migrants crossing the Channel for target practice.

Another organizer, George Jones, was filmed making derogatory comments about the LGBTQ community, describing the pride flag as “degenerate.” These revelations have resulted in the dismissal of the individuals involved, with Farage expressing dismay at their comments. “The appalling sentiments expressed by some in these exchanges bear no relation to my own views, those of the vast majority of our supporters or Reform UK policy,” he said. Despite his disavowal, the incident has added to a series of controversies surrounding Farage and his party.

Earlier in the campaign, Farage faced criticism for his comments about Sunak, implying that the Prime Minister does not “understand our culture.” This statement came after Sunak left early from D-Day commemorations in France, drawing further scrutiny on Farage’s stance and rhetoric. The scandal involving the Reform UK party has wider implications for British politics. Labour leader Keir Starmer, who is currently leading in polls to potentially replace Sunak as Prime Minister, expressed his shock at the footage and suggested that Farage faces a critical test of leadership. Starmer’s reaction reflects the broader condemnation across the political spectrum regarding the toxic culture exposed within the Reform UK party.

Sunak also took the opportunity to criticize Farage’s past praise for Andrew Tate, a controversial figure facing charges of human trafficking and rape in Romania. Tate, who has denied all charges, has been labeled a “vile misogynist” by Sunak, who argued that “Andrew Tate isn’t an important voice for men. He’s a vile misogynist. And our politics and country is better than that.” The latest scandal is part of a troubling pattern for Reform UK, which has had to withdraw 166 candidates since the beginning of the year, many due to making racist or offensive remarks. This pattern raises serious questions about the vetting and culture within the party, suggesting systemic issues rather than isolated incidents.

The anti-racism organization Hope Not Hate has been vocal in highlighting the problematic elements within Reform UK, contributing to the broader discourse on the dangers of normalizing hate speech and bigotry in political campaigns. The racist slur against Prime Minister Rishi Sunak by a member of the Reform UK party has sparked a significant political and public backlash. Sunak’s forthright condemnation of the incident and the broader culture within the party underscores the urgent need for addressing racism and intolerance in British politics. As Nigel Farage’s campaign faces increasing scrutiny and controversy, the incident serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges in combating hate speech and ensuring inclusive, respectful political discourse.

The repercussions of this incident are far-reaching, impacting not only the immediate political landscape but also the broader societal discourse on race, religion, and identity in the United Kingdom. Sunak’s public denunciation of the racial slur and his call for accountability within the Reform UK party resonate deeply in a country grappling with issues of diversity and inclusion. His response serves as a powerful statement against the normalization of hate speech and bigotry, setting a precedent for how such incidents should be addressed by political leaders.

The scandal has also brought into sharp focus the need for rigorous vetting processes within political parties. The repeated occurrence of racist and offensive remarks by Reform UK candidates suggests systemic issues that need to be addressed to prevent such incidents from recurring. This incident underscores the importance of fostering a political culture that upholds the values of respect, tolerance, and inclusivity.

As the political fallout from this incident continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how Nigel Farage and the Reform UK party will navigate the challenges ahead. Farage’s disavowal of the offensive remarks made by his party members may not be sufficient to quell the growing criticism and scrutiny. The broader implications of this scandal extend beyond the immediate political context, highlighting the ongoing struggle to combat racism and bigotry in all spheres of society.

In the wake of this controversy, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s leadership and commitment to addressing issues of racism and intolerance will be closely watched. His unequivocal condemnation of the racist slur directed at him and his call for accountability within the Reform UK party mark a significant moment in the fight against hate speech and bigotry in British politics. The incident serves as a stark reminder of the importance of maintaining a political culture that values diversity, respect, and inclusivity, and the ongoing challenges in achieving this goal.


M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at :

1. Asian Age, BD : 02 July, 24

2. Weekly Blitz, BD : 30 June, 24


   



Monday, 1 July 2024

India is Not America’s ‘Friend in Need'

M A Hossain, 


Over the decades, the geopolitical landscape between the United States and India has reached new heights. Though this partnership has garnered significant attention, it's essential to recognize that India's engagement with the U.S. is driven more by pragmatic considerations than by a deep-rooted alliance. The growing proximity between the two nations is largely a strategic move by India. India's ultimate aim is to counter the rise of its neighbor, China, rather than to align wholesale with American interests. So, in a geopolitical context, the U.S.-India pact is driven by regional supremacy over a geopolitical rival.

India's strategic alignment with the United States has been significantly influenced by the need to counterbalance China's growing assertiveness in Asia. Over the past decade, China has expanded its influence through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and increased military activities in the South China Sea. Moreover, India is almost surrounded by China-friendly nations. This expansionist agenda has raised alarms in New Delhi, which sees a direct threat to its own regional dominance and security.

The Doklam standoff in 2017, where Indian and Chinese troops faced off at the Bhutan-China-India tri-junction, exposed the tangible nature of this threat. Subsequently, the deadly clashes in the Galwan Valley in 2020 highlighted the volatile state of Sino-Indian relations. These incidents have propelled India to seek stronger security and economic ties with the United States, a nation with the military and economic clout to counterbalance China.

India’s participation in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), which includes the U.S., Japan, and Australia, is a clear manifestation of this strategy. The Quad aims to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific, implicitly countering China’s regional influence. India's involvement in this group indicates its desire to leverage U.S. support to ensure regional stability and prevent any single power, particularly China, from dominating the Indo-Pacific region.

From the U.S. perspective, India represents a critical partner in its broader strategy to contain the influence of both China and Russia. The U.S. recognizes India's strategic location, vast market, and growing military capabilities as valuable assets in maintaining a balance of power in Asia. In reality, India is the only state that can play a significant role in counterbalancing America's geopolitical rivals.

Washington’s foreign policy under successive administrations emphasized counterterrorism in Asia. When Western nations were busy using hard power to neutralize terrorism, China was consistently influencing those destabilized nations by using its soft power policy. After two decades of the 'War on Terror,' the U.S. and its allies found zero-sum achievements and hostile postures from those affected nations. To cover up this time-lapse dent with geopolitical strategic engagement, India is considered an ideal ally to create a coalition that can present a united front against authoritarian regimes in Beijing and Moscow.

The United States has consistently encouraged India to align more closely with Western policies and perspectives on global issues. This alignment is not just about military cooperation but also involves economic policies, technological exchanges, and diplomatic stances. For instance, the U.S. has pushed for India's inclusion in various international forums and supported its bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

Despite its growing ties with the United States, India has maintained a historically significant relationship with Russia. This bond dates back to the Cold War era when India, under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, pursued a policy of non-alignment but leaned towards the Soviet Union for support in key areas.

The strong bilateral relations between India and Russia have been evolving since the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation was signed in 1971. During the Liberation War of Bangladesh in 1971, the Soviet Union’s diplomatic and military support was crucial for India's diplomatic triumph over Pakistan. Subsequently, Russia has remained a vital source of defense equipment and technology for India. The BrahMos missile, a product of Indo-Russian collaboration, exemplifies the depth of their defense ties.

Even today, despite Western sanctions and international pressures, India continues to procure significant military hardware and crude oil from Russia. India’s Foreign Minister, Mr. Jaishankar, explicitly spelled out that India will prioritize its interests over geopolitical rivalries. This enduring relationship is rooted in trust and mutual benefit, making it challenging for India to completely pivot away from Russia in favor of U.S. interests.

The Indo-Pacific strategy is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy aimed at countering China's growing influence. The inclusion of India in this strategy is based on several factors. Firstly, India’s geographical location provides a strategic advantage in controlling key maritime routes in the Indian Ocean, through which a significant portion of global trade passes.

Secondly, India’s military capabilities and its role as an emerging regional power can assist in maintaining Western supremacy in this region. The U.S. views India as a counterweight to China’s military expansion and its assertive postures in South and Central Asia.

Thirdly, the democratic values shared by the U.S. and India form a basis for cooperation in promoting stability and governance in the region. The U.S. sees India as a partner in championing democracy and countering the influence of alternative regimes. The U.S. expects India to see China and Russia through Washington’s eyes.

Furthermore, the economic potential of India as a growing market and a hub for technological innovation aligns with the U.S. objective of creating a resilient supply chain that reduces dependence on China. The U.S.'s information technology sector is significantly dependent on Indian experts. The U.S. shares its military, surveillance, and intelligence technology with India, which paves the way to counter China's psychological warfare.

India's engagement with the United States is primarily driven by strategic necessity rather than a deep-seated alliance. The rise of China as a regional hegemon has pushed India closer to the U.S., but this relationship is not devoid of complexities. India's historical ties with Russia and its pursuit of strategic autonomy suggest that it is not ready to fully align with any single power bloc.

The U.S. aims to integrate India into its Indo-Pacific strategy to counterbalance China and Russia, leveraging India’s strategic position and capabilities. However, India’s foreign policy will likely continue to be characterized by a careful balancing act, maintaining its traditional partnerships while exploring new ones to safeguard its national interests.

In essence, while the U.S. may see India as a crucial partner in its global strategy, India is not America's 'friend in need' in the traditional sense. The relationship is one of mutual benefit and strategic pragmatism, reflecting the complex realities of contemporary geopolitics.

M A Hossain, political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at: writetomahossain@gmail.com

This article published at : 
1. The Nation, Pak : 29 June, 24
2. Pakistan Today, Pak : 30 June, 24
3. Daily Lead Pakistan, Pak : 30 June, 24