United Kingdom's Rishi Sunak. Photo Credit: Tasnim News Agency

Foreign Policy Of New British PM Rishi Sunak – OpEd

 November 12, 2022  Eurasia Review  0 Comments

By Kazi Anwarul Masud

Can one compare the unflinching critical utterances of former British Prime Minister Liz Truss relating to Russian invasion of Ukraine and China’s alignment with the illiberal tide of the two countries with the Munich Agreement when then European powers (Germany, France. Britain and Italy permitting German annexation of Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland but promising that all future differences be resolved through consultations?

The agreement wanted to appease Adolf Hitler not to break peace in Europe. In the years following World War I Adolf Hitler was gaining a reputation as one who would not follow prior agreements. His deep desire to unite the true German people pushed him to expand Germany and overtake the surrounding areas. The other nations within Europe were desperately working towards peace without recourse to violence. This commitment to non-violence weakened the ability of anyone to stop Hitler.

Written treaties and agreements became the only options for slowing Hitler’s momentum or enacting any form of punishment. The Rhineland was one of the first non-violent buffers put in place to undermine any possible German aggression. The system of treaties and alliances ironically backfired as Hitler invaded the Rhineland in response to feeling threatened by the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Alliance and Mutual Aid. This first invasion began the pattern of violent reactions from Germany to agreements for peace throughout Europe. The militarization of the Rhineland quickly led to Hitler gaining complete control of the area. Hitler then took a step further by invading Austria. This invasion was widely overlooked as many other powers in Europe were committed to appeasement, focusing on foreign policy and negotiations to prevent another country from going to war. Due to this appeasement and the absence of any physical force against him, Hitler was able to annex Austria quickly. This evolved into a desire to unite the borders of Czechoslovakia to Germany as well. 

MUNICH AGREEMENT AND ITS RESULTS

The Munich Agreement resulted from this intersection between appeasement and Czechoslovakia. The Munich Agreement signed over the Sudetenland, or the borders of Czechoslovakia where many ethnic Germans lived, to Germany in return for a promise of peace from Hitler. Munich Agreement was written to appease Hitler once more in hopes of ending his violence. This was hoped to be the final straw as Hitler himself had agreed to back down and be satisfied after this.

If we put ourselves in 1938, this agreement could be considered a great step towards peace. Appeasement could have worked, the Munich Agreement could have stopped him, and World War II would have been non-existent. No one knew exactly what Hitler was capable of, what he was hoping to accomplish, and the devastating war that was to come. The Munich Agreement was meant to bring “peace for our time,” as heralded by one of its signers, Neville Chamberlain. It was set to finally wrap up all tensions and “assure the peace of Europe.” This agreement was supposed to end the aggression and was meant to be a peaceful agreement. Instead it enabled Hitler to continue showing force. The Munich Agreement had the opportunity to stop the war and failed due to its weak predecessors and the strong pattern of appeasement towards Hitler.

CONTRAST WITH THE POLICIES OF LIZ TRUSS

Contrarily, Prime Minister Liz Truss for a while had taken strong position against the Russo-China position. Ben Judah editor-in-chief of WPR magazine observed “From the war in Ukraine to China, Truss adopted hawkish stances while serving as foreign secretary. Judah describes her as a hard-liner who is always seeking a “Thatcher-Reagan solution.” Truss “has a taste for even greater action on the world stage after being foreign secretary during a European war”.

Gallup found that almost two-thirds of the British public lacked confidence in the government, while Truss herself was even less popular. Washington Post (September 6 2022) described Liz Truss as an unpopular leader of the UK. Then Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, was more popular among sitting Conservative lawmakers in Parliament. Broader public opinion polls show the opposition Labor Party with its strongest lead in a decade.

The country that Truss hoped to lead was unquestionably diminished. Most analyses find that Britain’s departure from the European Union has dented its economy, added to its supply chain headaches and hurt its trading prospects. An analyst recently warned investors that Britain is “more and more looking like an emerging market country” and won’t have the ability to manage “an easy escape” from a deep recession. Britain represents a country in dismal spirits: 69% of Britons, including 60% of Conservative voters, agree that the country is “in decline”.

And the Conservative Party had grown insurrectionary. The leadership campaign for the Tory Party leadership between Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss had meant a policy vacuum on the cost-of-living crisis and in particular on the enormous rises in energy bills that will hit households and businesses imminently. Liz Truss had voted for Britain to remain in the European Union before becoming a hardcore Brexiteer. As foreign secretary, she was a reliable NATO ally and Ukraine supporter, talking tough on Russia and its President Vladimir Putin. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia expected no improvement in relations with Britain regardless of who won the Tory Party leadership was elected, because both (Rishi Sunak-Liz Truss) competing for Party leadership had “obviously been competing in anti-Russian rhetoric.” He said it was “hard to imagine a worse situation” in relations, “but, unfortunately, we cannot rule this out.” 

DOES RISHI SUNAK HAVE FRIENDS IN BRUSSELS

While unpopular in Moscow, it is not known how popular Rishi Sunak is in Brussels. The history of Britain and the European Union has been rocky. In 1963 President Charles de Gaulle vetoed Britain’s application to join the European Union. Edith Cresson former Prime Minister of France was aware of Charles De Gaulle’s dislike for Britain. He told BBC in an interview in 2017 that “Formally Britain would be in but actually they’d always be with the Americans.” The UK finally made it into the club in 1973, but just two years later was on the verge of backing out again. In 1975, the nation held a referendum on the question of joining the European Union. Tensions between the EEC and the UK exploded in 1984, when the Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher took a tough stand in order to reduce British payments to the EEC budget.

The Maastricht Treaty, which took effect in 1993, created the Brussels-based European Union (EU), of which the EEC, renamed simply the European Community (EC) was the main component. The EU was designed to integrate Europe’s nations politically and economically, including a united foreign policy, common citizenship rights and (for most member nations, not including the UK) a single currency, the euro. (The History Behind Brexit. The often-rocky relationship between Britain and the European Union stretches back nearly half a century. Sarah Pruitt 2019).

Tensions between the EEC and the UK exploded in 1984, when the Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher talked tough in order to reduce British payments to the EEC budget. Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair, who won a landslide victory in 1997, was strongly pro-European Union, and worked to rebuild ties with the rest of Europe while in office. Labor Prime Minister Gordon Brown signed the document, but was criticized for failing to defend a treaty he had helped to negotiate.

In the interests of protecting Britain’s financial sector, David Cameron became the first UK prime minister to veto a EU treaty in 2011. In early 2013, he gave a much-anticipated speech in which he outlined the challenges facing Europe and promised to renegotiate membership in the EU if his Conservative Party won a majority in the next general election. At the same time, support was growing among British voters for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and its hard-liner stance against the EU. Against the backdrop of economic unrest in the eurozone (as the territory of the 19 EU countries that use the euro is known) and an ongoing migrant crisis, UKIP and other supporters of a possible British exit from the EU—or Brexit—increased. After winning reelection in May 2015, British Prime Minister David Cameron went to work renegotiating the UK-EU relationship, including changes in migrant welfare payments, financial safeguards and easier ways for Britain to block EU regulations. 

BREXIT REFERENDUM

In February 2016, he announced the results of those negotiations, and set June 23 as the date of the promised referendum. Turnout for the referendum was 71.8 percent, with more than 30 million people voting. The referendum passed by a slim 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent margin, but there were stark differences across the UK. Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU, as did Scotland (where only 38 percent of voters chose “leave”), leading to renewed calls for another referendum on Scottish independence. England and Wales, however, voted in favor of Brexit.

In October 2016, Prime Minister Theresa May, who had assumed office following David Cameron’s resignation, announced her intention to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, formally giving notice of Britain’s intent to leave the EU. On March 29, 2017, the order, signed by May a day earlier, was delivered to the Council of the European Union, officially starting the two-year countdown to Britain’s EU departure, set for March 30, 2019. However, on March 30, 2019, Parliament rejected May’s EU withdrawal agreement. The European Council set a new deadline of October 31, 2019, or the first day of the month after that in which a withdrawal agreement is passed—whichever comes sooner.

One has to take into account the tension between Britain and the European Community to understand British attitude towards the European Union. In his congratulatory message to then PM Liz Truss (on 6th September 2022) President Joe Biden vowed to work closely on global challenges and the U.S.-UK “special relationship,” despite differences over Northern Ireland. Biden reiterated “to deepening the special relationship between our countries and working in close cooperation on global challenges, including continued support for Ukraine as it defends itself against Russian aggression”.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that China hoped relations with Britain would remain “on the right track”. It is presumed that British conviction is deep rooted in favor of democracy and against illiberal regimes that promise quick delivery of essentials to the needy while not tolerating any dissent from the prescribed policies. 

UKRAINE AND DETERIORATION OF GLOBAL ORDER 

Harvard luminaries Dany Rodrik and Stephen Walt apprehend that, “The global order is deteriorating before our eyes. The relative decline of U.S. power and the concomitant rise of China have eroded the partially liberal, rules-based system once dominated by the United States and its allies”. They added that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine may have revitalized NATO, but it has also deepened the divide between East and West and North and South. The international order that will emerge from these developments is impossible to predict”.

Rishi Sunak has to be on guard of Boris Johnson’s Churchillian ambition of making a comeback as Prime Minister once again. There is however a difference between the two. Winston Churchill won the Second World War. Ben Baxel-Dale Smith writes in Foreign Policy magazine of large degree of continuity will persist between Johnson-Truss-Rishi Sunak administrations on foreign policy particularly on Russian invasion of Ukraine reaffirming the Western support to President Zelensky.

Given the difficulties faced by Rishi Sunak at home it is difficult to predict how far the commitment to Ukraine will go. President Biden has already ruled out American boots on the ground both in Ukraine and Taiwan. Sunak had publicly said that China is the biggest long-term threat to Britain and the world’s economic and national security. Despite Rishi Sunak’s explicit opposition to Chinese way of doing business he has not committed to assurances of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss that by 2030 the UK defense budget would rise to 3 percent.

In the same vein Harsh V Pant, an Indian analyst wrote in his article titled THE CHALLENGE OF BEING RISHI SUNAK that Sunak’s ascendency to the top is a great moment for British democracy. Sunak’s appointment as Prime Minister and his over whelming support from the members of Parliament displays that Britain has crossed the Rubicon of color prejudice that had tainted British rule in the world for centuries. It is too early to tell whether the British people will vote in a Labor Party government in the next general elections.

Now Rishi Sunak is in charge. An important analyst Peter Mclaughlin has expressed apprehension about the very unity of the United Kingdom. He thinks the ending of the Good Friday Agreement between feuding parties, the Catholics and Protestants, in Northern Ireland that had ended the bloody war in 1998 may raise the issue of uniting with the Republic of Ireland.

Equally the question of a second referendum on the independence of Scotland raised by Scottish Nationalist Party ( SNP) does not bear well for either King Charles III or the new British Prime Minister. In short the war between freedom loving countries of the world and those preaching illiberal way of life that may quickly deliver goods to the needy but under complete sway of dictators like Presidents Vladimir Putin or Xi-Jinping where George Orwell’s 1984 or Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World would be taught to the students in text books.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Ambassador and Secretary of Bangladesh.

 Print

Bangladesh Foreign Policy in the Context of South Asia

By Kazi Anwarul Masud

Issue:  Net Edition    | Date : 16 Sep , 2022

Ever since the people of the world learnt the need for homogeneity –be it cultural, linguistic, religion, tribal of for the necessity to band together and felt the need to acknowledge the existence of a world beyond their own, diplomacy has been playing a role either as a friend or foe. I would argue that regardless of the size or the economic strength of a country practice of democracy remains the pillar of cohesion.

Throughout history the definition has changed in line with the existing situation. Plato argued that democracy was inferior to various forms of monarchy, aristocracy and even oligarchy on the grounds that democracy tends to undermine the expertise necessary to properly governed societies. In a democracy, he argues, those who are expert at winning elections and nothing else will eventually dominate democratic politics. Democracy tends to emphasize this expertise at the expense of the expertise that is necessary to properly governed societies. The reason for this is that most people do not have the kinds of talents that enable(STANFORD ENCYCLOPADIA OF PHILOSOPHY).

Modern practice of diplomacy puts emphasis on democracy as the binding force of diplomacy. John Stuart Mill argued that a democratic method of making legislation is better than non-democratic methods in three ways: strategically, epistemically and via the improvement of the characters of democratic citizens. Strategically, democracy has an advantage because it forces decision-makers to take into account the interests, rights and opinions of most people in society. Since democracy gives some political power to each, more people are taken into account than under aristocracy or monarchy.

The most forceful contemporary statement of this instrumental argument is provided by Amartya Sen, who argued, for example, that “no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press”. The basis of this argument is that politicians in a multiparty democracy with free elections and a free press have incentives to respond to the expressions of needs of the poor.

A contrary argument is given by China’s Xi Jinping who argues that totalitarian system is better able to deliver goods to the people than a democratic system is. The foreign debt of China, by June 2015, stood at around US$ 1.68 trillion. China’s debt has grown dramatically over the past decade and is one of the biggest economic challenges confronting the ruling Chinese Communist Party, which turns 100 this week. Beijing identified the ballooning debt pile as a potential threat to economic stability, and in recent years tried to reduce the country’s reliance on debt for growth. But that deleveraging effort came to a pause for much of last year due to Covid-199 JUNE 2021).

This foray into Chinese economy is for two reasons: first, is because of Bangladesh’s position in South Asia. It has only 145 kilometres boundary with Myanmar (bedevilled with the Rohingya crisis) and the Bay of Bengal. On all sides Bangladesh is dependent on India. Bangladesh is India’s biggest trade partner in South Asia. Bilateral trade between India and Bangladesh has grown steadily over the last decade. India’s exports to Bangladesh in FY 2018-19 stood at $9.21 billion and imports during the same period was at $1.04 billion. The Indian economy expanded 4.1% year-on-year in the first three months of 2022, slightly higher than market forecasts of 4%, but due to rising Omicron infections, elevated energy prices, and ongoing supply chain constraints.

On the consumption side, household spending slowed sharply and both exports and imports growth also eased. In contrast, government spending increased more and gross fixed capital formation accelerated. Considering the fiscal year ended in March 2022, the economy advanced 8.7%. Reserve Bank of India estimates the GDP growth rate for FY 2023 at 7.2%.Exports to Bangladesh in China decreased.

Bangladesh is world’s second-biggest apparel exporter after China. Garments including knit wear and hosiery account for 80% of exports revenue; others include: jute goods, home textile, footwear and frozen shrimps and fish. The bilateral trade between Bangladesh and China has increased significantly in recent years. Bangladesh has been suffering from historic trade imbalances with China since its economic relationship after 1974. This trade deficit makes Bangladesh dependent on China and raises serious concerns about the economic and financial impact. For increasing exports to China could lead to a decrease in trade deficits. Bangladesh needs ensured access to the Chinese market. This step of sincere and active cooperation between the two countries is considered significant enough to reduce the trade deficit.

An Indian foreign policy expert Brahamy Chellany (China’s Debt-Trap Diplomacy Jan 23, 2017 BRAHMA CHELLANEY)and no less Donald Trump’s vice president Mike Pence warned the emerging economies of Chinese debt trap policy. Through its $1 trillion “one belt, one road” initiative, China is supporting infrastructure projects in strategically located developing countries, often by extending huge loans to their governments.

As a result, some of these countries are becoming saddled with debt, leaving them even more firmly under China’s thumb. Some contrary opinions have been sounded in favor of Chinese loans due to unemployment in those countries and the rising cost of essentials. The people in those countries are pressing their governments to accept Chinese loans that would provide employment and fund infrastructure for which the host country lacks money.

Bangladesh is no exception. Sheikh Hasina’s official visit to China (July 2019) seemingly succeeded in bolstering ties between the countries. During the trip, both sides inked a host of agreements, including two deals to provide loans to the Bangladeshi power sector. The countries also expressed interest in accelerating the work related to the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar Economic Corridor (BCIM EC) project, an initiative aimed at expanding the economic ties of the four countries that together are home to nearly three billion people.

Bangladesh and China turned their relationship into a strategic partnership in 2016, and, in recent years, Chinese investment in the South Asian country has risen rapidly. As part of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), Beijing and Dhaka signed deals worth $21.5 billion covering a raft of power and infrastructure projects. To date, pledged BRI-related investment in Bangladesh stands at around $38 billion.

China has pumped more money into Bangladesh than any other country over the past couple of years. China alone accounts for almost a third of this investment, worth over $1 billion. The Padma Bridge, a major road-rail project across the Padma river, is being built by the China Major Bridge Engineering Company. And China’s Exim Bank is providing $3 billion for the construction of the rail link accompanying the bridge. It prompts countries like Japan and India to also come forward and invest.

Bangladesh has announced an ambitious plan to set up 100 special economic zones by 2030. Many Chinese companies appear interested in investing in these zones. The question, apart from Indian discomfiture, Bangladesh has to take into consideration whether democracy as a way of life should be abandoned because of Xi Jinping’s promise of quick delivery as he and CCP are able to deliver the goods needed by the people. Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy states that unless equality is shared among citizens in law and policy there may be substantial and conscientious disagreement among them.

The basic facts are that individuals are very diverse in terms of their interests. People’s interests are diverse because of their different natural talents, because they are raised in different sectors of society and because they are raised in societies where there is a diversity of cultural backgrounds. Partly as a consequence of the fact that people are raised in different sectors of society and in distinct cultural milieus, they are likely to have deep cognitive biases when they attempt to understand other people’s interests and how they are compared to their own interests.

The question that has to be answered is whether the West now allied with the European Union and other freedom loving countries are to be jettisoned in favor of authoritarian system which promises quick results but no dissention in policy making. Apart from ideological differences Bangladesh risks to be isolated from the West whose assistance we shall need at every step of the way. In can be argued that close relations with China does not have to be at the cost of relations with the West.

© Copyright 2022 Indian Defence Review

 

Conflict in Ukraine

By Kazi Anwarul Masud

Issue:  Net Edition    | Date : 23 Aug , 2022

In an article in Foreign Affairs magazine (The Putin Doctrine: A Move on Ukraine Has Always Been Part of the Plan, By Angela Stent January 27, 2022).She wrote, and I quote- “The current crisis between Russia and Ukraine is a reckoning that has been 30 years in the making. It is about much more than Ukraine and its possible NATO membership. It is about the future of the European order crafted after the Soviet Union’s collapse.” Unquote. Russian President Vladimir Putin now reviled throughout the world, if 3rd March UNGA voting is any indication where141 voted for that resolution (more than two-thirds of those voting) received was a diplomatic blow to Moscow. On the other, five countries voted against the resolution, while 35 abstained and 12 absented themselves.

President Putin never reconciled with the demise of the Soviet Union and its denial of the seat along with the US and her allies to dictate the affairs of the world. Though Donald Trump’s “America First” and the policy’s consequential effects on Europe / NATO members and the freedom loving people throughout the world, were disappointed with the then US President.  His successor President Joe Biden has succeeded to an extent to repair the damage done but is yet to regain the trust of the world in the reliability of the US as a friend in need.

To many President Putin is on his way to establish Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth’(based on George Orwell’s novel NINETEEN EIGHTY-FOUR).Orwell created ‘Newspeak’, the official language of the totalitarian state of ‘Oceania’. Its purpose was to diminish the range of thought by eliminating shades of meaning and nuance from Old speak (Standard English). For example, without a word for freedom, the concept of freedom cannot exist. It remains to be seen if President Putin, barring atrocities committed by Russian soldiers in occupied areas of Ukraine, is aiming to just that.

One may recall that after the fall of Adolf Hitler an estimated four million German women were raped by the victorious soldiers. During the Sino-Japanese War historians named the defeat of the Chinese and called the massacre of the Chinese capital as “Rape of Nanking,”. The Japanese soldiers butchered an estimated 150,000 male “war prisoners”, massacred an additional 50,000 male civilians, and raped at least 20,000 women and girls of all ages, many of whom were mutilated or killed in the process. These examples are not given as an “explanation” of war time massacres as one rape is far too many and the perpetrators should be punished without mercy.

It is viewed that the current crisis is ultimately about Russia redrawing the post–Cold War map and seeking to reassert its influence over half of Europe, based on the claim that it is guaranteeing its own security. One may wonder if a case can be made for President Putin. In a televised address in February this year Putin complained that over the past 30 years Russia had been patiently trying to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe.

In response to Russia’s proposals, it “faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite Russia’s protests and concerns”.  There is no denying the fact that the Western developed economies after winning the Second World War ushered in a period of complete suzerainty over the whole world including the aspiring newly emerging countries. The distribution of IBRD (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) the head of which shall be an American national while the head of IMF (International Monetary Fund) shall be from Europe is a case in point. Europe was barred from the New World due to the strict imposition of Monroe Doctrine by the US which declared itself as the sole arbiter of settling all disputes in Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine was applied by President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet nobody,(President Biden included) wants a Third World War. The Economist in a write up on August 2nd2022 held out the hope that “The strongest reason for America’s caution, though, is the fear of escalation—that Russia might lash out militarily at NATO (“horizontal escalation”, in their jargon) or resort to use of chemical or nuclear weapons in Ukraine (“vertical escalation”). Either version would almost certainly draw NATO into direct conflict with Russia, and President Joe Biden has vowed to avoid “World War III”. But then one has to be cautious of Thucydides Trap.

More often than not wars break out due miscalculation of one party or the other. Hopefully everyone is on board with Joe Biden. Otherwise as someone has commented that the malign spirit of the Monroe Doctrine not only continues but has now been extended by the US government into a kind of Global Monroe Doctrine. In order to assert this preposterous claim on the entire planet, the United States has pursued a policy to ‘weaken’ what it sees as ‘near peer rivals’, namely China and Russia. Time has changed from the Spartan age to the modern era and certainly from the post-World War II when the Americans in particular with the British acquiescence wrote the history of the world regardless of the aspirations emerging economies and newly independent countries had. Some developing countries, eg India, could not be written off due to its size and democratic credentials which the developed economies preached.

Coming back to Russian invasion of Ukraine analysts opine that as far as Putin is concerned, the use of force is perfectly appropriate if Russia believes that its security is threatened: Russia’s interests are as legitimate as those of the West.  For the most part, the United States and Europe have rejected the Kremlin’s narrative of grievance, which centers most notably on the breakup of the Soviet Union and especially the separation of Ukraine from Russia. When Putin described the Soviet collapse as a “great geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century,” he was lamenting the fact that 25 million Russians found themselves outside of Russia, and he particularly criticized the fact that 12 million Russians found themselves in the new Ukrainian state.

Putin proposed to the West that countries like Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine should not join either NATO nor be aligned with the Russian side so that Russian security structure is not threatened. The West, in particular the US, totally disregarded this Russian plan. On 15th August 2022 Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Iceland announced to deepen their security and defense cooperation in the wake of Russia’s war on Ukraine. The prime ministers of the five countries met in Oslo, Norway and issued a joint statement. During the meeting, Norwegian Prime Minister talked about the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its consequences while also adding that the Nordic countries are committed to supporting the fight that Ukraine has been facing.

The joint statement said that Finland and Sweden’s proposed NATO membership would strengthen the alliance and that the cooperation in the field of security and defense between the countries in the region would help the strengthening and development of NATO. In addition, Nordic countries will be part of the new security order and that all five prime ministers agreed to mandate ministers of foreign affairs, ministers of defense and chiefs of defense to maximize the cooperation among the countries. Earlier in August President Joe Biden signed the instrument of ratification passed by the US Senate on the entrance of Nordic countries Finland and Sweden into North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) confirming the accession.

The expansion of NATO, the world’s most powerful military alliance, comes in the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Among the countries who abstained on the UNGA resolution Indian ambassador to the UN T. S. Tirumurti spoke of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s efforts to promote diplomacy to end the Ukraine crisis. He elucidated India’s firm conviction, that differences can only be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy. Indian ambassador mentioned that Prime Minister Modi unequivocally conveyed this in his discussions with world leaders including of the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Indian Prime Minister underscored the urgent imperative for humanitarian access and movement of stranded civilians. “We therefore sincerely hope that the second round of talks between the Russian Federation and Ukraine will lead to a positive outcome,” he added.

India urges that all member states demonstrate their commitment to the principles of the UN Charter to international law in respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states. At the same time Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dr. A. K. Abdul Momen MP explained Bangladesh’s abstention from voting at the UNGA resolution that reprimanded Russia for invading Ukraine as the resolution was not meant to stop the war but to blame somebody. At the same time, DR. A. K. Momen emphasized the “importance of international law and respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty,” revealing that Dhaka was implicitly condemning Russia for invading Ukraine to support its adherence to international law and the U.N. Charter.

The situation in Ukraine does not appear to be easing. The US and EU Nations have Called For UNSC Meeting to discuss “Situation Prevailing In Ukraine” .The US and certain EU nations have urged the UNSC to hold a meeting on August 24 to discuss the situation in Ukraine.  Earlier on August 17, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric stated that the situation surrounding the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) and the shelling of a correctional institution in Yelenovka will also be discussed by the parties during the meeting. UN chief Guterres is currently on a visit to Ukraine where he is expected to meet embattled President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. According to reports, the meeting between three leaders is slated to take place in Lviv, near Ukraine’s border with Poland. UN Secretary General Guterres’ visit to Ukraine comes nearly a month after the United States and Turkey helped broker a grain export deal between Ukraine and Russia which paved the way for Kyiv to export its millions of tons of grain that were stuck in the Black Sea ports since the onset of war.

“Guterres’ trip to Ukraine will allow him “to see first-hand the results of the initiative … that is so critically important to hundreds of millions of people,” It is further expected that forthcoming meeting in Ukraine would also raise the need for a “political solution” to the war. It is pertinent to mention here that the delegations of Russia and Ukraine have held several rounds of peace negotiations since the onset of the war on February 24, but they all have failed to achieve the desired results. It is expected that talks might resume with Russia in August. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian government has made it clear that the country will not accept any “ceasefire settlement” that involves ceding territory to Moscow.

Despite Ukrainian President’s bravado displayed on television screens one has to recognize Russian security threats that the Western countries pose by high level visits to Kyiv and arms given to the regime. Quote “Ukraine is part of the Russian area of influence, which includes a variety of hybrid and illiberal regimes, but also loyal allies (Belarus and Kazakhstan), hectic ‘rebels’ (Georgia), and ambiguous entities (Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) that are neither aligned with the Kremlin nor directly opposed to it. Russia has long been accustomed to dominating political elites within this area of influence, including by authorizing external military interventions and promoting regime change.

Among the states counted as ‘rebels’, Ukraine has been the most independent and western-oriented, underlined by the Orange Revolution in 2004-5 and the events of the Euromaidan that ultimately brought an end to the regime of Viktor Yanukovych. Given the fact that the Western countries are unlikely to send troops to Ukraine it would be logical to recognize Russian security interests and for Russia to let Ukraine remain an independent country without ties to NATO or the European Union. At all costs rise of an Adolf Hitler in Europe has to be avoided.”

© Copyright 2022 Indian Defence Review

 FRANZ FANON AND SOUTH ASIA

Paper No. 6770                   Dated 26- Mar-2021

By Kazi Anwarul Masud:

 Frantz Fanon a Marxist who had joined the Algerian independence war

wrote about the prejudice of, what he called, the "colonial alienation

of the person" as a mental health issue.        In The Wretched of the

Earth (French: Les Damnés de la Terre), published in 1961, Fanon

analyzed how French colonization and the carnage of the Algerian War

had mentally affected Algerians' self-identity and mental health.

Fanon argued that the colonial psyche was fractured by the lack of

mental and material homogeneity as a result of the colonial power's

Western culture being pressured onto the colonized population despite

the existing material differences between them.                During

the period of European colonial rule in India, Europeans in India

typically regarded many aspects of Indian culture with disdain and

supported the colonial rule as a beneficial "civilizing mission

beneficial to the people of India, rather than a process of political

and economic dominance by a small minority of foreigners.  Albeit

under colonial rule, many practices were outlawed, such as the

practice of forcing widows to immolate themselves (known as sati).

Colonel Sir William Sleeman when Lord William Bentinck was

Governor-General of India was instrumental in suppressing the Thugs

who idolized Maa Kali and used to rob people of their belongings. The

practice and was discouraged by Evangelical missionaries claimed by

some scholars to have played a significant role in the development of

the modern definition of Hinduism. These claims based their

assumptions on the lack of a unified Hindu identity prior to the

period of colonial rule.      Hindu nationalism developed in the 19th

century as an internalization of European ideological prominence; with

local Indian elites aiming to make themselves and Indian society

modern by "emulating the West". This led to the emergence of what some

have termed 'neo-Hinduism': consisting of reformist rhetoric

transforming Hindu tradition from above, disguised as a revivalist

call to return to the traditional practices of the faith. Reflecting

the same arguments made by Christian missionaries, who argued that the

more superstitious elements of Hindu practice were responsible for

corrupting the potential rational philosophy of the faith. Some

critics have claimed that Rudyard Kipling's portrayals of Indian

characters supported the view that colonized people were incapable of

living without the help of Europeans as racist. In his famous poem

"The White Man's Burden", Kipling argued for this point by

romanticizing the "civilizing mission" in non-Western countries.

Similar sentiments appeared in Kipling's other works, such as his

characterization of the Second Boer War as a "white man's war" along

with his presentation of 'whiteness' as a morally and culturally

superior trait of the West. His portrayal of Indians in his Jungle

Book stories has also been criticized as example of the chauvinistic

infantilization of colonized peoples in popular culture. Some

historians claim that Kipling's works have contributed towards the

development of a colonial mentality in the ways that the colonized

people in these fictional narratives are made submissive to and

dependent on their white rulers.  Individuals of Indian descent who

adopt European culture have sometimes been labeled as "Macaulay's

Children". The term usually used in a derogatory fashion derived from

19th-century historian, politician, and colonial administrator Thomas

Macaulay, who instituted the system of Macaulayism, replacing Indian

languages and dialects with English as the official medium of

instruction in Indian educational institutions. The consequences of

this educational policy can still be felt in present-day India, where

the use of English, as opposed to Hindi, still carries with it a level

of superiority. Nationalist politicians have campaigned and pushed

forward policy changes to promote the official usage of Hindi in

education and media over English, which was protested against in the

south of India as the imposition of Hindi upon non-Hindi speakers.

Contrarily      Joseph Conrad in Heart of Darkness narrates through

Marlow’s story that Darkness takes place in the Belgian Congo, the

most notorious European colony in Africa because of the Belgian

colonizers' immense greed and brutal treatment of the native people.

In its depiction of the monstrous wastefulness and casual cruelty of

the colonial agents toward the African native's Heart of Darkness

reveals the utter hypocrisy of the entire colonial rule.  In Europe,

colonization of Africa was justified on the grounds that not only

would it bring wealth to Europe, it would also civilize and educate

the "savage” natives. Heart of Darkness shows that in practice the

European colonizers used the high ideals of colonization as a cover to

allow them to viciously rip whatever wealth they could from “savages”

who remained to be “civilized”.       Unlike most novels that focus on

the evils of colonialism, Heart of Darkness pays more attention to the

damage that colonization does to the souls of white colonizers than it

does to the physical death and devastation unleashed on the black

natives. Though this focus on the white colonizers makes the book

somewhat unbalanced, it does allow Heart of Darkness to extend its

criticism of colonialism all the way back to its corrupt source, the

"civilization" of Europe.  Allied is the term

“American imperialism”  that refers to the economic, military, and

cultural influence of the United States internationally     American

imperialism is partly based on American exceptionalism, the idea that

the United States is different from other countries because of its

specific world mission to spread liberty and democracy.      One of

the most notable instances of American imperialism was the annexation

of Hawaii in 1898, which allowed the United States to gain possession

and control of all ports, buildings, harbors, military equipment, and

public property that had belonged to the Government of the Hawaiian

Islands.      Some groups, such as the American Anti-Imperialist

League, opposed imperialism on the grounds that it conflicted with the

American ideal of Republicans and the “consent of the governed.” Then

came the use of the term:           Social Darwinism, an ideology that

seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism or evolutionary theory

to sociology and politics, often under the assumption that conflict

between social groups leads to social progress, as superior groups

surpass inferior ones. Also popular was the term      “American

Exceptionalism”-a  belief, central to American political culture since

the Revolution, that Americans have a unique mission among nations to

spread freedom and democracy. Close by was the term         “ American

Imperialism” which referred to the economic, military, and cultural

influence of the United States on other countries.      Expansion and

Power and to the economic, military, and cultural influence of the

United States on other countries.  The advent of industrialization

caused American businessmen to seek new international markets in which

to sell their goods. In addition, the increasing influence of social

Darwinism led to the belief that the United States was inherently

responsible for bringing concepts such as industry, democracy, and

Christianity to less developed “savage” societies. The combination of

these attitudes and other factors led the United States toward

imperialism    American imperialism is partly rooted in American

exceptionalism, the idea that the United States is different from

other countries due to its specific world mission to spread liberty

and democracy. This theory often is traced back to the words of 1800s

French observer Alexis de Tocqueville, who concluded that the United

States was a unique nation, “proceeding along a path to which no limit

can be perceived.”      Pinpointing the actual beginning of American

imperialism is difficult. Some historians suggest that it began with

the writing of the Constitution; some would like to trace the imperial

behavior of the United States to the Louisiana Purchase. Critics

describe this event as an, “aggressive encroachment of one people upon

the territory of another, resulting in the subjugation of that people

to alien rule.” They refer to the U.S. policies toward Native

Americans, as “designed to remold them into a people more

appropriately conformed to imperial desires.”

Whatever its origins, American imperialism experienced its pinnacle

from the late 1800s through the years following World War II. During

this “Age of Imperialism,” the United States exerted political,

social, and economic control over countries such as the Philippines,

Cuba, Germany, Austria, Korea, and Japan. One of the most notable

examples of American imperialism in this age was the annexation of

Hawaii in 1898, which allowed the United States to gain possession and

control of all ports, buildings, harbors, military equipment, and

public property that had formally belonged to the Government of the

Hawaiian Islands. This action resulted in Hawaii’s becoming America’s

50th state in 1959.          The American Anti-Imperialist League

opposed the annexation on the ground that imperialism violated the

credo of republicanism, especially the need for “consent of the

governed.” They did not oppose expansion on commercial,

constitutional, religious, or humanitarian grounds; rather, they

believed that the annexation and administration of third-world

tropical areas would mean the abandonment of American ideals of

self-government and isolation—ideals expressed in the U.S. Declaration

of Independence, George Washington‘s Farewell Address, and Abraham

Lincoln‘s Gettysburg Address.  The Spanish-American War was the result

of American intervention in the ongoing Cuban War of Independence with

Spain.      The war served to further repair relations between the

American North and South. The war gave both sides a common enemy for

the first time since the end of the Civil War in 1865, and many

friendships were formed between soldiers of Northern and Southern

states during their tours of duty.      The war marked American entry

into world affairs. Since then, the United States has had a

significant hand in various conflicts around the world. An example was

the        Treaty of Paris, negotiated on terms favorable to the

United States. The Spanish-American War marked American entry into

world affairs. Before the Spanish-American War, the United States was

characterized by isolationism, an approach to foreign policy that

asserts that a nation’s interests are best served by keeping the

affairs of other countries at a distance. Since the Spanish-American

War, the United States has had a significant hand in various conflicts

around the world.  The war redefined national identity, served as a

solution of sorts to the social divisions plaguing the American mind,

and provided a model for all future news reporting. Joseph Conrad in

his book            Heart of Darkness expresses his skepticism about

imperialism. Set in Central       Africa Conrad and presents “a

ruthlessly ironic view of European colonialism and the pretension of

civilization” The narrative fully developed in Heart of Darkness, the

plot of which is set in       Africa offers an exceptionally ironic

view of European imperialism and trading practices.        According

to some a partial explanation of Conrad’s skepticism about imperialism

is to be found in his Polish upbringing. After experiencing the

partition of his home country between Russia, Prussia and Austria,

Conrad had a good reason to question the right of great powers to

submit smaller countries to their will. Another answer lies in the

fact that Conrad had himself traveled in Africa where he experienced

the “rapacity and brutality of Europeans” exploiting the Continent. It

is no surprise that criticism of the European civilization appears in

Heart of       Darkness where again the impact of individuals isolated

from their social system shows the inability of European civilization

to protect its individuals from corruption.      In much of his, work

Conrad expresses his skepticism about imperialism. For example, “An

Outpost of Progress” is set in Central       Africa and presents “a

ruthlessly ironic view of European colonialism and the pretension of

civilization” After experiencing the partition of his home country

between Russia, Prussia, and Austria, Conrad had a good reason to

question the right of great powers to submit smaller countries to

their will. Another answer lies in the fact that Conrad had himself

traveled in Africa where he experienced the “rapacity and brutality of

Europeans” exploiting the Continent.       Criticism of the European

civilization appears in “An Outpost of Progress”     when the

characters, isolated from the conventions and institutions of their

‘civilized’       world, reveal the hollowness that lies at its core.

This theme reappears in Heart of       Darkness where again the impact

of individuals isolated from their social system shows the inability

of European civilization to protect its individuals from corruption.

  The relevance of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness to the twentieth and

twenty-first centuries is apparent in the allusions to the story in

media and in culture in general.    Can one then argue that Conrad was

not far from his central premise that the British who had come to

India for trading managed to stay on because the Mughals failed to

understand the British concept of grasping political power from a

fragmented majority Hindu population? The final nail in the coffin was

 put by Emperor Aurangajeb by his foolish taxation policy imposed on

the majority yet fragmented Hindu populace.