English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest world news

Fair Is Foul And Foul Is Fair In Syria

Published

on

Fair Is Foul And Foul Is Fair In Syria

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

By Saeed Naqvi

 Like Henry Kissinger, New York Times columnist, Thomas L Friedman, belongs to a growing tribe of strategists who insist that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been overshadowed, indeed overwhelmed, by a much bigger, Shia-Sunni faultline.

 Even though Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 hijackers, Wahabism, Salafism, are all traced to Saudi Arabia, the US, Israel and the West in general have developed a high comfort level with Saudi Arabia regardless. In this framework, the West has placed the Shia world in opposition to it.

 Was it always like this? Consider this recent historical perspective.

 “As we approach the season of the Nobel Peace Prize, I would like to nominate the spiritual leader of Iraq’s Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for this year’s medal.” The recommendation came from NYT ace columnist, Friedman. For emphasis, he added: “I’m serious.”

 This was in 2005. Friedman, was “in” with George W. Bush. In ecstatic pieces for the world’s most powerful newspaper, the NYT, he repeatedly described the occupation of Iraq as history’s greatest effort at democratization.

 Americans had come against Saddam Hussain, a tough Baathist and atheist by belief and a manufacturer of weapons of mass destruction. Remember Saddam invoked “Allah” for political mobilization only after the 1992 operation Desert Storm. He had Allah o Akbar inscribed on an otherwise secular emblem as an afterthought.

The eclipse of Saddam brought great relief to Shias in the South – around the holy cities of Najaf, Karbala and oil rich enclaves neighbouring Basra. For the first time the world realized that Shias were an overwhelming majority in all of Iraq.

 A triangular situation had emerged – the occupying Americans, Sunni (plus Kurdish) minority and the Shia majority. The Shias, led by Ayatollah Sistani, played a straight political hand. Once occupation had taken place, he encouraged the occupiers against his tormentor, Saddam Hussain.

 That is when Friedman was moved to write:

“If some kind of democracy takes root here (Iraq), it will also be due in large measure to the instincts and directives of the dominant Iraqi Shiite communal leader, Ayatollah Sistani.”

 “It was Sistani who insisted that the elections not be postponed in the face of the Baathist-fascist insurgency. And it was Sistani who ordered Shiites not to retaliate for the Sunni Baathist and Jihadist attempts to drag them into civil war by attacking Shiite mosques and massacring Shiite civilians.”

 Friedman proceeded to compare the Ayatollah with other icons who helped bring democracy to their respective countries – Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev.  The quality of democracy that obtains in Russia, Iraq and South must be left for Friedman to applaud.

 Rightly or wrongly, Friedman extrapolated from his experience in Iraq. This is at a variance from the fraud Bush’s Defence Secretary, Dick Cheney sought to perpetrate on April 9, 2003, when he had the marines pull down Saddam Hussain’s state at Firdous square and attributed the event to a popular uprising.

Friedman zigzagged along shifting convictions, until by August 2015, he began to show the first signs of tolerating something so totally different from Sistani as to take one’s breath away. In a conversation with Barack Obama he appeared to be nodding agreement on a kind of positive ambiguity about the ISIS.

Sudden and exponential growth of the Islamic State was something of a mystery. It is in the nature of the post colonial media that the views of Developing country elites particularly in the Arab world (except allies like Saudi Arabia, other GCC countries and Jordan) never get reflected in the media. How did the elites in Iraq, Oman, Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Iran and other Muslim countries view the IS phenomenon. Without exception, they described it as an American, French, British, Saudi, Qatari and Turkish cooperative effort. I know first hand. Ask the ambassadors in New Delhi.

If this is what they thought, why were they silent? They were not silent, but their protestations were ignored by the global networks. So hopelessly one sided is the global media, that even shining stars of independent journalism like Seymour Hersh and Robert Fisk are killed by a simple trick of being ignored.

 Writing on Donald Trump’s proposed visit to the centres of semitic religions, Riyadh, the Vatican and Jerusalem, Fisk satirically speculates: “Trump will be able to ask Netanyahu for help against the IS without – presumably – realizing that Israel bombs only the Syrian army and the Shia Hezbollah in Syria but has never – ever – bombed IS in Syria. In fact, the Israelis have given medical aid to fighters from Jabhat al Nusra which is part of Al Qaeda which attacked the US on 9/11.”

 By universal consent, Fisk is among the most knowledgeable journalist who has lived in West Asia for decades. But the Imperial Information order keeps him outside the ken.

Truth however has a way of surfacing. Let us revert to Friedman’s interview with Obama. Friedman asked Obama why he delayed taking action against the IS when it was in its nascent stages?

Obama replies: “That we did not just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across Iraq as soon as the IS came in was because that would have taken the pressure off Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al Maliki.”

 In other words, by the US President’s own admission, the IS at that stage worked as an asset to apply pressure on Maliki who was in bad adour with the US because he had refused to sign the Status of Forces Agreement with the US ironically on the advice of exactly the person Friedman was recommending for a Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 – Sistani.

Lo and behold, in his recent column, Friedman is advising Trump to give up the pretense of fighting IS – because that is not in the US (and presumably Israel’s) national interest.

 He wants “Trump to be Trump – utterly cynical and unpredictable. ISIS right now is the biggest threat to Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and pro-Shiite Iranian militias.”

 “In Syria” Friedman recommends, “Trump should let ISIS be Assad’s, Iran’s Hezbollah’s and Russia’s headache.” In other words, let the IS be a western asset.

 A recent cartoon with a most succinct message shows one Saudi ask another:

“We finance wars all around us, when shall we bomb the Jewish state?”

 “When it becomes Shia.”

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Latest world news

S Jaishankar says India is a natural option for Russia amid Europe tensions

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said India remained a natural option for Russia as Moscow increasingly turned towards Asia amid strained relations with Europe. He highlighted the continuity of India-Russia ties and their significance for the balance of power in Asia.

Published

on

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has described India as a natural option for Russia as Moscow increasingly looks towards Asia amid deteriorating relations with Europe. He said India’s longstanding relationship with Russia had remained steady despite significant changes in the international strategic landscape.

Jaishankar made the remarks during a conversation with John Micklethwait, editor-in-chief of the Bloomberg New Economy Forum. He discussed how the Russia-Ukraine war had affected Moscow’s relationship with Europe and contributed to Russia’s growing focus on Asia.

Jaishankar highlights Russia’s shift towards Asia

Jaishankar said Russia’s relationship with Europe had become deeply strained following the Ukraine war. He noted that Russia had historically viewed itself as a European country and placed considerable importance on its relations with Europe and the United States.

However, the conflict had pushed Moscow to look increasingly towards Asia,with much of that shift directed towards China.

The minister said it was in India’s interest, as well as the wider world’s interest, for Russia to maintain multiple relationships in Asia rather than having its options concentrated in one direction.

Against this backdrop, he described India as a natural partner for Russia, pointing to the longstanding nature of the relationship between the two countries.

India-Russia ties remain steady despite global changes

Jaishankar said India and Russia had maintained a consistent relationship over several decades. He emphasised that New Delhi continued to engage with Moscow even as the global order and Russia’s strategic calculations evolved.

According to the minister, India was reassuring Russia that the relationship built over nearly eight decades remained steady despite the changes in Moscow’s relations with Europe and the wider West.

He stressed that India was not passing a value judgment on those changes but was continuing its bilateral engagement with Russia.

Jaishankar said the relationship had benefited both countries and contributed to the balance of power and the broader status quo in Asia. 

Why the relationship matters for Asia

Jaishankar’s remarks highlighted India’s position in Russia’s changing regional outlook. As Moscow increasingly turns towards Asia, India continues to maintain its longstanding ties with Russia while navigating a changing international environment.

The minister’s comments underscored the importance he placed on preserving India-Russia ties and ensuring that Russia maintained multiple relationships in Asia. 

His assessment came against the backdrop of strained Russia-Europe relations following the war in Ukraine, which has reshaped Moscow’s engagement with Western countries and increased its focus on Asian partners.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

Putin praises PM Modi, says he has very good ideas on Ukraine war

Russian President Vladimir Putin has praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for repeatedly raising the need to end the Ukraine war, describing his ideas for a settlement as “very good”.

Published

on

Vladimir Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin has praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for his continued efforts to promote an end to the Russia-Ukraine war, saying the Indian leader has “very good ideas” aimed at finding a mutually acceptable solution.

Putin made the remarks while addressing the Valdai Forum of international Russia experts, where he spoke about Modi’s repeated efforts to raise the issue of ending the conflict.

What Putin said about PM Modi

Putin said Modi has continued to raise the question of ending the conflict despite the close and friendly relationship between India and Russia.

According to Putin, the Prime Minister has shown a strong interest in finding a solution and has ideas that could help identify mutually acceptable ways to resolve the conflict.

Putin also described India’s position as neutral while highlighting Modi’s interest in bringing the conflict to an end through peaceful means.

The Russian president expressed gratitude to Modi for his ideas and his desire to see the conflict end as soon as possible.

Modi’s position on the Ukraine war

PM Modi has repeatedly called for dialogue and diplomacy to resolve conflicts, including during his meetings with Putin.

During their September 11 meeting in New Delhi, Modi reiterated that dialogue and diplomacy are the way forward for resolving conflicts.

Modi had also told Putin during their meeting on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Bishkek that the situation needed to move from “endless war” towards an end to the war.

India has consistently maintained that conflicts should be addressed through dialogue and peaceful means, with Modi previously describing the present period as not being an era of war.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict began in February 2022 and has continued despite repeated diplomatic efforts to seek a resolution.

Continue Reading

Latest world news

S Jaishankar calls Pakistan a “serial practitioner of terrorism” at UN

S Jaishankar criticised Pakistan at the UN General Assembly, referring to a “serial practitioner of terrorism” and warning against attempts to normalise terrorism.

Published

on

S Jayshankar

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar criticised Pakistan during his address to the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, saying that a “serial practitioner of terrorism” had misrepresented facts and that arguments were being made to normalise terrorism. 

Jaishankar’s remarks came a day after Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif addressed the UN General Assembly and spoke about the 2025 military confrontation between India and Pakistan.

Jaishankar’s message to Pakistan

Referring to Pakistan without naming it directly in that remark, Jaishankar said a “serial practitioner of terrorism” had misrepresented facts before the UN General Assembly.

He said arguments were being made to normalise terrorism and claim immunity from its consequences, adding that such an approach would not stand. 

Jaishankar reiterated India’s position that the country would exercise its right to defend itself against terrorism.

He also said that friendship and goodwill could not coexist with terrorism and that understandings based on such circumstances would naturally be called into question. 

“It is for the perpetrator of terrorism to mend its ways,” Jaishankar said.

India stresses zero tolerance on terrorism

Jaishankar described terrorism as a persistent threat to peace and called for governments involved in cross-border terrorism to be held accountable.

He also stressed that there should be no dilution in India’s zero-tolerance approach towards terrorism and particularly called for greater attention to its financial aspects.

His remarks came a day after Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif referred to the 2025 India-Pakistan military confrontation during his UN General Assembly address. 

Jaishankar backs two-state solution for Palestine

During his UN address, Jaishankar also spoke about the situation in West Asia and said India was prepared to contribute to efforts addressing food and energy security amid continuing tensions and violence.

On the Palestine issue, he reiterated India’s longstanding support for a two-state solution.

Jaishankar said India was also contributing humanitarian assistance and relief efforts for the Palestinian people.

He also warned about continuing threats and pressures around the world and stressed the need for greater stability, security and predictability.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com