In response to Mitchell’s report, Israel came out with a pre-planned exercise reminiscent to that of the International Public relationing. Israeli PM Sheron put out the response without even caring to have seen the proposals contained in the report. This was obvious when he made no mention about anyone of the proposals conveyed by the report. Who does not appreciate the importance of a ceasefire but then one must address the genesis of the causes that continue, for the last fifty years, to undermine all the superfluous attempts made for such sorts of hoax, umpteen times, without ever nearing anywhere with the desolate attempts catering merely for symbolism/publicity, rather than genuinely trying to resolve the very simple issues, which are clearly backed by UNSC’s resolutions, as well? What is so chemeric about all this? India’s response to Pakistan’s efforts for a dialogue with her, came close at the heels of Mitchell’s report. India being the natural ally of Israel is not likely to do something different to that of Israel’s, in that region. We have (as also the Muslims of Middle East don’t have any problems), no problems with India, except the implementation (hanging fire for the last over fifty years), of the UNSC’s resolutions. That alone and nothing else is the problem both in the middle east and in the Indo-Pak subcontinent. All attempts to dislodge the focus from the real issue will now be proving disastrous for the planet earth itself.
Here I might be permitted to tell that we must examine and analyse inter-state relations on deeper consideration of world events, and not on an ad hoc basis. It is necessary to make a departure from old habits of thought, for the sake of clearer appreciation of facts. Indeed the true implications of recent happenings can only be judged if every major development in its proper perspective, in the vast jig-saw puzzle of international power politics, is thoroughly viewed.
This article was meant to consider the root cause of the root causes of all the troubles in the world. However, en route to that goal, making a mention of the root cause of our problems with India was considered absolutely appropriate, having heard about the likely Indian invitation to CE, for a dialogue to settle the only problem – the problem of the Muslim state of Jammu and Kashmir, that exists between both the countries.
International Law developed in leaps and bounds, though in marked contradiction to municipal law, is still a decentralised law and the dichotomy between the two is enormous. International law still bows at the altar of national sovereignty. It is because the UN Charter itself is political instrument. All decisions that emerged from UNO were based on metajuristic considerations, based on factors contaminated by the virus of subjective value judgement. Those decisions were shadowed by socio-political influences. We could not possibly have two definitions of aggression, one political and the other juridical. Thus politics achieved an all times ascendancy over law.
Development of Law unto International Law
EU has its own laws to meet its own internal requirements. Asia, stands deprived of it given the demographic cleansing because of the absence of any inter-state law establishing/applying the principles of human rights, in it. Can intercontinental community be evolved, in the developing/under developed countries in the NAM, prior to having effective international law. Seeing what the EU is trying to do in that continent, to apply a solidly united approach for the purpose between the continents, and across the global village, one tends to suggest EU’s precedent, in the case of Asia as well.
However, since India cannot stop waving her bigger stick and since also she refuses to see developments in a cautious light, given her Xenophobic mentality, her smaller neighbours are uniting to defy her hegemony. True, there cannot be any peaceful resolution of problems, unless following EU example, India does not apply the criterion of equality between the equity and the inequity. The EU’s type cooperation, therefore, is out of question because of India. India, God forbid, after becoming a veto power will most certainly stick to this yardstick, thus creating further discontent amongst the NAM countries. India will never change even if the whole world begins to cringe, seeing her might. India has honestly no problems with her neighbours. It is her own mentality which cannot rest in peace without creating problems. With Pakistan and China, she can ask for UN forces/observers, if she is really threatened. No, she would not do so as long as US/West continue to keep their purse’s strings at India’s disposal. India has killed the very spirit behind the formation of SAARC. The developing countries need foreign investments and domestic savings, which cannot be realised unless India looks down to her pathetic poverty which of course exists but to a lesser extent in her smaller neighbouring states. Just what was the value of a dollar vis-a-vis that of a rupee’s, a few years back? Inflation has already broken the spinal-cord of the people in all the smaller neighbouring countries of India, necessitating increase in wages/pensions fabulously and immediately. The vicious cycle would thus continue to expand further and further. Rescheduling/soft loaning would never be able to remedy the ever expanding and vitiating recycling, which is in vogue here, for debt repayment G-8, instead of writing off the loans are doing everything which would increase the debt burden of the NAM countries. UN-International Court of Justice being innocuous entity is inert in fact.
Direct Aggression / Indirect Aggression
An armed attack is gruesome and odious because of the damage it inflicts. If more devastating and deadly damage to life and property can be inflicted, without an armed attack, without the use of force, by means far more callous and perfidious, then such means must constitute a part of aggression, as much as an armed aggression. Indirect aggression like economic aggression has proved extremely fatal, since 1980s. In December 1979 Soviets invaded Afghanistan, by using huge number of Armed Forces, for achieving quick results. By acting on ‘Nixon Doctrine’, President Jimmy Carter/Ronald Reagan, used Pakistan as a conduit or a proxy state to fight their war against Soviets upto 1987, to wear down the Soviets economically. It was chiefly, rather exclusively due to economic disaster that the Soviets cried out, for ending the war, at any cost. Without respite, making Kuwait as proxy, this strategy was successfully applied against Iraq. BJP’s Advani, after 13 and 15 May 1998, challenged Pakistan to respond, ‘if she had the capacity to raise her head in front of India’s might’. He taunted to instigate Pakistan enter into an armed race to wear Pakistan down, to bleed Pakistan white and to make Pakistan surrender to the dictation and domination of India, at the behest of US-Israeli/Nazi, Zionist’s lobby, that was to use, as we see, India as proxy/conduit, against the fast rising PRC. Pakistan was made poor/bankrupt by Nawaz Sharif and Zardari, who ferried away Pakistan’s wealth abroad and deposited it in their private accounts. The world press, if quoted today, would furnish exact figures, stretching over many long years of about two decades. Atom Bomb was made by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who was hanged by Zia -the agent of US, according to Lt Gen (Retd) Chishti’s book “The Betrayal of another Kind”. Why go far, for God’s sake read Dr A.Q. Khan’s book, “ON SCIENCE AND EDUCATION”, which was taken out by Editors Shabbir Hussain and Mujjahid Kamran, in 1997. What Nawaz did was to take away over Twelve billion dollars of FOREX deposited by Pakistani citizens here in Pakistan in own banks! Nawaz’s son is only deceiving himself and a few of his father’s co-plunderers by telling that Nawaz was the one who did the atomic job.
So, with the mountains of natural allies’ financial support and technological floods, provided to India, she was made to, accordingly, take the last drop of economic blood out of Pakistan’s bankrupt economy. But Pakistan managed to refuse to oblige India, after Nawaz Sharif was packed out. Nawaz Sharif had succumbed to Clinton’s pressures in the first week of July 1999, in the Blair House Washington. He had promised to sign CTBT and also accepted LOC/CFL as a permanent and sacrosanct boundary between India and Pakistan. Why the sugar was not available in Pakistan? It was because the habitual parasite had exported sugar to India, for own Kitty, when Pakistan needed it most! When you read the coloured pages of ‘JANG NEWSPAPER’ only while you are waiting for your turn, at the barber’s shop, once a month; you can easily be misled by the fraudulent utterances! Because of the dynamism and realism, adopted by this government, there is luckily no arms race fever in Pakistan, to the chagrin of A.B. VAJPAYEE and his right hand-man Shiri Advani. India does not wish one. After all, one of its influential hawks has recently said (just a few days before India cancelled the ‘ceasefire’ stunt in IHK, while at the same time inviting CE of Pakistan for talks there; which happened coincidentally, after Mr. Mitchell’s proposals to Israel and Palestine for ensuring peace in that region), that “It would be a good thing to outspend Pakistan, just as the US outspent USSR, thus hastening its collapse”. Pakistan’s nuclear capability pioneered and nourished with his blood by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, (Read A. Q. KHAN), is far superior to that of India’s. BB’s services in the Missile’s technology for Pakistan are indeed praiseworthy, but she/ because of her, Zardari and she, went down the abyss, like the Qabza Groups – Nawaz Sharif & Co.
Definition of Aggression
International Law developed in leaps and bounds, in as much as it were to interest the Greater powers and since Article 51 of the UN Charter stayed dormant, the interests of the smaller nations continued to be harmed. Article 39 of the charter, which speaks of “acts of aggression”, needs clarification, through the consensus of all the UN member states in the General Assembly Would an “act of aggression”, mean only an armed attack or would it mean” aggression direct and indirect”. A rigid and a limited definition may well defeat the very object of defining aggression. The definition to an all-embracing one, might also include “Aggressive Intent”, the “Notion of Indirect Aggression”, “The Economic Aggression”, Ideological Aggression”, “Terrorism”, Cyber Warfare”, “Aggression against a Riparian state”, Asymmetric Warfare”, etc. But the freedom struggle against the usurper flouting the UNSC’s resolutions over decades, must be excluded most explicitly.
Economic Aggression by Politicians
The politicians and the bureaucrats of Pakistan, have committed economic aggression against Pakistan. If one calculates their charges of corruption, spelled out by each party against the other, the total exceeds one hundred billion dollars easily. They must return the wealth back to the people of Pakistan. Their fight is not imputed to be against the military setup, its rather considered to be against the people of Pakistan against whom they have all united, in the name of their stinkingly well known democracy. They welcomed the military transparency, for retrieving the wealth from the thieves. People are now not happy with the setup because they have as yet not been able to recover even the outer fringes of it, according to thieves own charges against each other, which are on record in the National Assembly’s and the Parliament’s proceedings. The people will bring a revolution. Nobody can tolerate economic aggression, both, from within and from without. Economic aggression by the enemy can be committed by placing its agents, at the helm of affairs in the targeted country!
NAM CHERISHED FREEDOM AND FOUGHT AGAINST DOMINATION as much as the countries of the 1st and the 2nd world did for themselves. Almost all the vetoes have been used by US, to further her cause through her allies. The record of UNSC’s proceedings is there to prove it. Thus the UN has been made itself the rootcause of the root-causes of all the world’s problems and conflicts. The exhausted humanity faces terrible clash of civilisations. The realisation was re-engendered freshly by Prof. Huntington of US-Jewish lobby, afresh, in early 1992. How long the dream of world peace be considered chimeric? The vested interest would continue to refuse the pain – refuse that has become unavoidable to treat the patient -the ailing humanity, to avert its ominous disaster. The task is not as gargagtuan as it has been made to look, by the sole super power.
The New World Order (NWO), owed its origin to NAFTA and it was later adopted by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), (Davy, 1996:1). It pertained only to resolution of differences. The process was later expanded and conceptualised as the NWO. It is in fact a response of organised business to the growing globalisaiton of markets and politics. The latter is scrambling to keep up with increasingly liberalised markets. For that reason, public policy, formally confined to nation-states, is now being internationalised in various ways. That’s what the NWO is! In nutshell, it is the maid-servant of the G-8. Unfortunately, they impute all problems or terrorism to the smaller states, after having created the same, for them – the smaller nations.
General Assembly of the UNO be made the Sovereign Organ of this world body. UN Security Council being a political entity, be subordinated to it. General Assembly with International Court in the right hand and the relevant Charter of the 21st century in the left, would be able to enforce law, through the Security Council which will be answerable to it being its obedient servant/subordinate organ. Being a juridical organ, the sovereign of all others; its decisions will be based on justice with all the might and force at its disposal for the implementation of these juridical decisions. This General Assembly will be formed by the member nations of the world, who will form its federating units. Veto Power will cease to exist and all decisions in the light of the 21st century’s UN Charter, will be based on consensus/formed by the majority vote of the member states. Justice would prevail and it will automatically be followed by an era of peace and tranquillity. All outstanding UN resolutions would have been implemented before that speedily, though not without justice. Thus, the humanity would be having a true global village/ a multi-cultural society/community signifying Unity in diversity/ Unity of mankind; in a world common wealth/ United States of the World, being governed by the member states themselves, through the sovereign Organ of the UNO, which will be ensuring justice as well as the implementation of its just decisions honestly and comprehensively. Peace will come!