Is American hegemony indispensable in the world?

Indian hegemony is destructive on the Indian subcontinent but American hegemony is desirable in the world? This statement smacks of Pakistan’s desperation and American connivance. It also reveals China’s instigation and Japan’s ambivalence! Does it mean an Indian victim hood? Not in the least! It shows Indian diffidence and lack of assertiveness. Similar diffidence could also be seen in the nineteenth century America. It was busy fighting a devastating civil war and all kinds of continental disputes, not very different from what you see in India today. World War I changed all that and we saw the emergence of a great world power, The United States of America.

Remember the British Empire? It entered the twentieth century with the same misplaced confidence. The British Empire was also the largest debtor nation in 1900 but ignored the warning signs. The only difference appears to be the absence of another major power capable of either replacing America or sharing the burden it shoulders. Having said that it must be acknowledged that the United States has created more problems in the past three decades than it has solved. I am reluctantly accepting Fareed Zakaria’s assertion about ‘The Post American World’. He suggests that the world would have to be organized like a board of directors where many powers would share the burden with America’s leadership. The problem with this point of view is that the United States is absolutely unwilling to accommodate just about anybody on the face of this earth! Just THINK about this serious problem!

Most of the contemporary problems in the world were created by the British Empire, the Soviet Empire and the American Empire, whether they accept it or not. Now, the emerging Chinese Empire is itching to add on to them with full connivance of the United States and the European Union. There is no country or group of countries strong enough to deter them as yet. The mischief that China is creating in Africa and South America would have to be dealt with in the decades to come. In twenty years when the African Continent and the South American Continent is on fire, America would sit on their hands and look the other way just like the erstwhile British Empire is doing today. It is time G-20 or some such group takes control of the situation and prevents the impending catastrophe. We do not have much time left!

Mr Obama is no more the heartthrob of the world!

Many countries are already miffed by the brazen selfishness of the Obama administration, including India. This week Prime Minister Gordon Brown paid an official state visit to the ‘White House’ and found Mr Obama as a self-absorbed individual. Notwithstanding the nice talk in public view, Gordon Brown appeared frustrated with Obama-talk. President Barack Obama is extremely fond of talking and therefore gives very little time to the visiting guest to respond to the questions put by the media. But more importantly, it is the substance of the one-sided discussions that has started to alarm the governments around the world.

Mr Obama is convinced that he is personally so charming that he can persuade the world to his way of thinking. The problem is that his policies are backward-looking. Barack Obama is the last President to be a part of the wider-world. He is unwilling to engage the world leaders; instead he is looking for an obedient following! Contrary to the high expectations from his all-star ‘State Department’, Obama himself is delusional. He might be able to improve relations with Russia to achieve his short-term Middle-East goals. Other than that, he might have serious trouble with China and Europe. He might even engage with South America!

This President seems to have learnt nothing from Bill Clinton’s first term in the office or even George W Bush’s 8 year presidency. He is an inward-looking American President in the footsteps of Calvin Coolidge or Herbert Hoover. Mr Obama is looking for domestic demand where none exists. The only way the United States is going to come out of this contraction is by pursuing aggressive exports driven policy. This means more open trade with all trading countries. So far the evidence is to the contrary. He is unlikely to confront his left-wing of the party and by the time he understands that it might be too late. Let us see what happens at the G-20 summit!

American style democracy or hypocrisy?

American Presidents have been talking about spreading democracy around the world since the end of second world war. United Nations was the vehicle created for that very purpose. Today, this organization represents under 30 percent of the world population and has not added any new members to the Security Council since it’s inception. The permanent five (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom and the United States) as the members of the Security Council are called, have been discussing the much needed expansion since 70s. The idea is to represent the largest percentage of the population. India has a population of 1.1 Billion people but has no representation in the UN Security Council. There are 1.2 Billion Muslims in the world but again no representation in the UNSC. The entire continents of Africa and South America remain unrepresented. The two most likely candidates for a permanent seat at the Security Council are Germany and Japan. Are you kidding me?

India’s candidacy has long been advocated by France, Russia and the United Kingdom. Guess who opposes it? It is the oldest democracy in the world that opposes the largest democracy in the world for a seat at the United Nations Security Council. That’s right, it does not matter if the President who opposes India’s candidacy is Bill Clinton or George W Bush. They both have been so good at complimenting the Indian Prime Ministers for their contributions in promoting democracy and extending help in peace keeping operations around the world. But when it comes to lending US support for India’s rightful place at the UN, both of them remained opposed. And the reason is? Pakistan of course! For the past 60 years, dictators of different shapes and sizes in Pakistan have been far more important to the great democratic values of the United States of America rather than the dull and democratically elected Prime Ministers of India. Meanwhile the media acts dumb.

The United Nations was officially created on October 24, 1945 and it’s charter was ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom and the United States. The name “United Nations” was coined by President Franklin D Roosevelt on January 1, 1942 representing the coalition of nations, during the Second World War. The forerunner to the United Nations was the League of Nations, created after the First World War to promote peace and security. The United States never joined the league. Diplomacy is not really a part of American DNA. Once the United States took over from the British Empire, as a superpower, it preferred to give orders to other countries rather than consult anyone. As long as the Soviet Union survived, it was difficult to take any unilateral action. After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, United States has virtual monopoly over the world body. The United Nations keeps passing resolutions that no country follows in any case. Even a country like Zimbabwe flouts the UN resolutions with impunity. What is United Nations worth?

What is America’s Foreign Policy?

The Foreign Policy of the United States has become skewed since September 11, 2001. You ask either Presidential candidate about the US foreign policy and he would talk about Iraq, Afghanistan and now Iran and the emerging threat to the world. If you happen to ask McCain about his foreign policy vision, he would add the Israel-Palestine conflict and maybe trade with China. Conversely, if you happen to ask Obama the same question, he would mention Pakistan and Kenya to show his better credentials. The worst thing about the whole conversation is the knowledge of the person who is asking the questions in the first place. How did we reach here?

United States of America has followed an isolationist foreign policy for most of it’s existence. The first major international entanglement occurred during the First World War. America joined the Allied Powers to defeat the Central Powers but refused to Join the League Of Nations after the Treaty of Versailles. This engagement was driven because of America’s self interest rather than any moral obligations. The United States was facing the threats from German U-boats to it’s maritime trade and was therefore driven to protect it’s vital national interests. Once an uneasy peace was negotiated in Europe, Americans went back to its isolationist posture.

There has been no real debate about America’s lack of international participation during the period between the First and the Second World Wars. This isolationist attitude, in my opinion, resulted in the rise of Nazism, Fascism and Communism in Europe and Russia. The British Empire was not in a position to handle the events in Europe and beyond. There was a power vacuum at the international level and Hitler filled that space with tragic consequences. I believe this resulted in creating the environment for the Second World War. With this, America was back at the table.

The election of 1932 and the takeover of the United States Presidency on March 4, 1933 by Franklin Delano Roosevelt brought the American isolation to an end. Roosevelt, a former Assistant Secretary of the US Navy was no nativist. He was not only familiar with South America but also acutely aware of the growing European dilemma. The US congress tried everything to continue with it’s paranoia with international affairs, but Roosevelt was educated enough to reject that and built foreign alliances. These initiatives served him well during World War II.

Nobody messes around with China…

Have you ever heard of a terrorist attack on mainland China? When was the last time a Chinese airliner was hijacked? Or for that matter, why is the Taliban or Al-Qaida not interested in China? After all, Chinese are in everyone’s face around the world. They have their fingers in every pie, be it the Middle-East, Africa, Asia, Europe, North America or even South America. With so much visibility all over the world, how come no body is mad enough to carry-out a terrorist attack against them. Are the terrorists scared of China or do they consider Chinese to be their friends?

Come to think about it, since 9/11, America hasn’t had any terrorist attack either. Probably George W Bush got it right. He went after them with an obsession that forced the likes of Osama bin Laden into a hole. Osama has not come out of his hole (cave) since 2003. Al-Qaida and Taliban can make all the threats they want, but the fact of the matter is that they got scared. There have been no attacks on the United States or it’s national interests anywhere in the world since September 11, 2001. God only knows what will happen when George Bush leaves office.

India on the other hand is like a ‘Pinata’ for the terrorists. There is not a single terrorist outfit in the world that has not hit India sometime or the other. The response from India is a statement of condemnation. Not only the terrorists but China and Pakistan, both consider India to be some kind of a joke. China grabbed India’s land and the 1962 war followed. India got such a beating that even today the thought of another confrontation sends chill down India’s spine. For the last couple of years, Chinese troops come for a walk on the Indian side of the border, every single day. What do we do? We send them letters of condemnation. They laugh in our face. Pakistan has sponsored an insurgency against India since 1947. What is India’s response? A formal Protest! Do you think it is time for L K Advani to take over?