[Reader-list] who's afraid of c raja mohan???

[taha mehmood]

Who’s Afraid of C.Raja Mohan???

After Saddam who?, reads the headline. The date is
March the 18th, 2003; the Bush administration is still
contemplating its first move. The war clouds are far
and distant. But in the world of diplomacy Saddam’s
obituary has already been written and the epitaph on
the cenotaph says, “After Saddam, Who?”

Welcome to the world of diplomatic journalism and its
reigning steward C.Raja Mohan. Over the last few
months I have been keenly observing the developments
across the Atlantic and as they are interpreted to us
in India by the battery of journalists one of whom is
redoubtable C.Raja Mohan, Strategic Affairs editor,
The Hindu. Although international relations is
nowwhere close to rocket science  but nonetheless I
find it a little difficult to understand. For, after
all the talk and blabber that I hear and see on
egalitarianism, cosmopolitan world order, level
playing field and basic human rights to all, etc, I
see a consistent dissimilarity of its representation
in the diplomatic journalese. I think, here the
binding principle is to pay obeisance to the powers
that be. Powers structures tend to completely jostle
out alternative viewpoints of dissent, dissatisfaction
and disagreement which are anything but similar to the
dominant paradigm. It not only seeks to reinforce the
ideology of the hegemon but offers justifications when
contradicted with non-interventionist views. So... it
sought of caught my attention, when having grown up
with a steady diet of anti imperialism I was
confronted with a world view which didn’t question
imperialism and in the era of the post colonial, geo
strategic designs of the neo conservative hegemons but
offered reasons seeking to make it acceptable.
It is with this objective in mind that I seek to
explore C.Raja Mohan’s writings on his take on the war
in gulf which administered a regime change in Iraq.

Before the war 
Even before the war started, when the world was still
uncertain about the occurrence of the conflict,
seemingly rapid developments were taking place by the
hour in the diplomatic circles, mammoth peace marches
were being organised all over the planet, C.Raja Mohan
in an unambiguous manner gave his verdict, “The Bush
Administration will now be compelled to justify its
attack against Iraq in the name of liberating  the
Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein”, adding to
underscore, “what better example is there for
Washington than Afghanistan that has been freed from
the Taliban?”.
Well... to be very candid I didn’t get it at all. Bush
Administration will be compelled to do what??
Illegally invade a sovereign state and murder,
torture, kill and maim innocent civilians because they
are suffering under an oppressive tyrant. And who
compelled the Bush Administration to take such a harsh
step.... unarmed demonstrators across the world who
believed in the right to live and let live. Or was it
the UN, who’s Security Council, gave America the nod a
decade ago thus maintaining its legitimacy as a world
body which it sadly failed to do so this time. And he
justifies the impending war by pointing us to
Afghanistan. Of course, if “freedom” means one is free
to cut one’s beard, listen to Hindi songs and watch
Bollywood movies, then I admit, I have no other option
but to agree with him. But if it means, right to life,
food, health and education then I have a problem with
Taliban-Afghanistan--- Saddam-Iraq model offered. But
then I guess, in the larger scheme of things, of the
geo-strategic aspirations of a hegemon, discrepancy in
the reasons presented simply doesn’t matter. 

Turkey’s rise to importance

Raja Mohan substantiated this argument further with
the pronouncement that, “the Bush Administration is
making it clear now that regime change is the goal in
Iraq and not merely disarmament”. While the necessity
of a till now haloed UNSC resolution suddenly became
irrelevant, it was the green signal from a small but a
crucial ally Turkey which occupied the centerstage
which was elucidated by, “Washington has been waiting
for weeks for a decision in Ankara. Despite the offer
of many inducements (read bribe)including billions of
dollars in grants and the consideration of its
interests(read share in War Booty) in the post Saddam
political arrangements in Iraq, Washington has not
been able to sway the opinion in turkey in its
favour”.
It is the small phrase in the last sentence; “sway the
opinion”, which merits special attention. Turkey
eventually gave the green signal but only after the
initial rejection of the parliament which, constitutes
the representatives of the people, declined to give
its assent, which the powerful and at times acquiring
Trans constitutional authority, the helm of the
Turkish armed forces intervened. What is interesting
here is, that the massive public opposition and unrest
didn’t even merit a mention; instead a hegemon’s
apparent inability to coerce a distant government to
comply to its agenda compelled a few diplomatic
eyebrows to be raised.
With the UN deemed redundant and getting the nod from
where it mattered the most, the focus of the US and
that of diplomatic journalese shifted from whys and
whens to how.




The Gulf War II
It was christened as, “A very different war”, with
“Power, precision and speed” to be the main features
of the invasion. Raja Mohan further writes that, “Nine
out of ten bombs used this time will be precision
guided weapons”, and that, “The overwhelming use of
airpower to produce “shock and awe” would be the first
instrument of the US military”.
Apart from the technological advancement, which
incidentally means greater destruction, can any war be
“different”, say from the ones which Alexander the
Great had fought in his life time prior to his death
in 327BC. Don’t all wars in its aftermath tell a tale
of widows, of orphans, of rapes, of murders, of
arsons, of butchering, of widespread destruction of
life and property, of loot and of mockery of
everything considered decent, human and civilised? I
don’t think that the war itself, or Iraq after it was
“different”. Instead there was a sullen, sad, silent
and a humbling realisation to the world that, might is
always right.

Return of the trio

An unjust war which was illegally fought was
unashamedly won. May be in some other sphere of
influence these words might carry some weight but they
don’t even exist in the undeviating world of
international relations. As Raja Mohan unravels
further, “winning is not the only thing; it is every
thing. Even the perception of victory makes nations
scramble on to the bandwagon of the side seen as
winning”. Emphatically referring to the, “Europe’s
about-turn”, stating that, “Even before Baghdad, or
any other city in Iraq has come under the full control
of the Anglo-American forces, Europeans are rushing
out to make amends for their wrong call on the 
Anglo-American war in Iraq”. While the
Franco-Russo-German audacity to challenge the status
quo was browbeaten upon their propitiatory rituals
were given an all condescending smile. No questions
were sought and no explanations given even as the
hegemon’s court were being restored to its pre war
attendance.
             
 Conclusion                     
          
Largely, I don’t disagree with Raja Mohan’s writings.
He writes like a seer foretelling an event, may be the
fact that unlike the universal laws of gravity where
force is inversely proportional to square of distance,
here one’s propinquity to the power centre or one’s
distance from it, does not alter the status quo, which
makes the system infallible and gives its observers
innumerable derivations, permutations and plausibly
complex situations in labyrinthine world of
International Relations, the results of which are more
often that not determined a priori.
But what disconcerts me more is the unquestioning
faith with which these dictums of power, or whatever
it is, are followed by its observers. Had these
dictums been sacrosanct, Roma still would have been
the capital of the world. 
Is Power in all is nakedness that ugly, that bad or
does a notion as just power, which may be an oxymoron,
exists. When history is replete with figures like
Moses Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Gandhi, and Khan Abdul
Gaffar Khan etc, who sought to engage with power in
their own inimitable way, while dealing with it in a
language not particularly favoured by the
practitioners of power, but nonetheless proving
victorious in the end. Reinstating in the process long
cherished notions of humanity, truth, justice and
coexistence. 
Or may be I am wrong, may be these figures belong to
the bygone era more suited for some old worn out and
torn pages of class sixth history book. For unlike the
near mythological characters which I have just
referred, Power reserves highest reverence and
gratitude to the lone individual atop its pyramid. So
whenever power converses it does so while constantly
referring to Bush, Blair, Putin, Saddam etc. but  I
think it would be a perceptional fallacy to ignore the
existence of hundreds of thousands of such individuals
who make up the pyramid. Because when the brewing
unrest of these individuals cannot contain itself it
explodes churning in the process the wheels of
history. What people like C Raja Mohan and his ilk in
the field of international relations omit is the
presence of the individual at the bottom of the power
pyramid.
I would never remember the recent  “Regime change” in
Iraq for its, “Shock and Awe”, strategy, “Precision
Bombing”, “Collateral Damage”, “Decapitation of a
city”, “Embedded Journalists”, reporting live,
containing “Horizontal escalation” or even “Operation
Iraqi Freedom”...for entrenched deep inside my
conscience is the enduring image of twelve year old
Ismail Abbas with stumps and ghost arms, his body
covered with burned out skin, lips pursed, eyes
staring out with agony, frustration and questioning
the powers that be about the change in status quo of
his tiny but equally essential world order.


Taha Mehmood.             
  



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com