Can one win a mortal combat of the War on Terror with one hand
Fighting a mortal combat with one hand tied behind is
the situation today with most of the nations that are afflicted with
the challenge of Terrorism. Russia suffered Beslan, blown up
airliners, hostage crises at the Moscow theatre; but it still helps
Iran to build nuclear facilities and threatens to spike Western
efforts to refer Iran to the Security Council for Sanctions. Russia
want to continue having its honeymoon with Syria and also wants a
relationship with the PA (Palestinian Authority) promising to supply
it with weaponry and equipment that could be used against Israel. And
where do the loyalties of the Iranian Mullahs, Syrian Baathists and
lie? With the Russians or with the terrorists attacking Russia? The
answer is obvious, except to the foggy vision of the Russian leaders!
While the terrorists are united in their murderous objective across the
globe and call for "Death to all infidels", the response to this
unitary challenge of terrorism is disjointed. And as long as this
response is also not as unitary and as determined as the challenge of
terrorism, there is no hope for an early or easy victory over the
challenge of Islamic Terrorism.
Moral of the Story : Our hand that
is manacled with the handcuffs of narrow nationalistic opportunism
and mutual rivalry has to be released so that we can grapple manfully
with Islamic Terrorism and save human civilization from this mortal
China has its own goose to roast with the Iranians. China has
valid economic reasons to build bridges with Iran. China's energy
deficit economy needs oil supplies badly and Iran has surplus of oil.
And so China wants to support the Iranian Mullahs at the UN, despite
the Uighur (Uygur) terrorists fighting to secede from China to form a
separate Eastern Turkestan. Although China keep its happenings under
warps helped by its state controlled media, some events of bomb
blasts and police action against terrorists do seep out.
these problems, China also follows a global policy to winking at the
depredations of terrorists across the globe and tries to be an
uninterested bystander in the war on terror whenever it is not
actively though unintentionally helping out the cause of terrorism by
defending Iran at the UN.
India is another case of a rising
economy that is energy starved and wants to build bridges (pipelines)
to let the oil flow from Yadavaran Refinery in Iran to India. That
this pipeline would be blown up by the Al Qaeda terrorists and
Balouch fighters in Pakistan, escapes India's attention. India has
recently voted in favor of the IAEA resolution on Iran, but India's
commitment remains wavering at best. India faces a bloodied terrorist
insurgency in its northernmost province of Kashmir, but when it comes
to Iran who is a supporter of Islamist terror, India is ambivalent!
Why so? Why is it that even Western nations who are subject to the
most dramatic terror attacks take an ambivalent approach when
confronting terrorism, especially when its rivals are facing the same
Why does the US administration, at least till recently
raise the bogey of human rights violations in Chechnya to pin down
rival Russia, and also make strange noises when Uzbekistan puts down
Islamist insurgency with a strong hand? Who could be an ally of the
USA, the non-Islamist government of Karimov or the Islamists who want
to replace his government with an Islamist Caliphate? The US
administration has behaved in a ham headed manner on this issue as on
many others too.
The US wants Israel to follow the roadmap toward
a two state solution where a Jewish and a Muslim state co-exist
peacefully in the Middle East - as if Muslim have ever existed
peacefully with anyone! The EU also puts similar pressure on Israel
to bend backwards on the Palestinian issue. And with whom do the
loyalties of the Palestinians lie with the US and EU or the
terrorists who bedevil them? The answer was oud and clear on 9/11
when Palestinians went about hooting in joy and distributing candy.
But the US is blind to this reality and keeps pushing the hapless
Sharon to extend concessions to the Palestinian terrorists.
France too follows a tough anti-terrorism policy at home, but its foreign policy is based on supporting dictators like Saddam to the hilt. This travesty owes itself partly to Frances business entanglements with the erstwhile Saddam regime and partly to it hoary Anglophobia. But such a travesty in France's policy strengthens the hands of Dictators like Saddam and helps forces supporting global terrorism.
Brits who suffered on 7/7, followed a holier than thou policy while
granting asylum to terrorists from across the globe, and turned a
Nelson's eye on their depredations in the UK calling for murder of
the infidels (Brits among them). In an ironical way, 7/7 has been the
saving grace (no pun intended on the term saving). The Brits have now
opened their a wee bit, to deport the most rabid among the
terrorists, but reports say that there are thousands of Muslims who
belong to sleeper cells and are waiting for a green signal to blow
themselves up and take as many as they can with them.
observer would be foxed as to why the administrations from as varied
countries as China, UK, Russia, India, USA all follow double
standards when they face terrorism. In Chechnya there is for the USA
a question of human rights violation, when the US itself is subject
to the worst form of terror attacks. For Russia Iran needs to be
given the right to nuclear technology, while Russian school kids are
murdered by Islamists. China would veto the resolution imposing
sanctions on Iran, while the Han Chinese are murdered in Xinjiang.
Why so? India would grumble about non-alignment and be very reluctant
to oppose Iran's nuclear ambitions when Indians are being murdered in
Kashmir and in the recurrent terrorists attacks in India. Why? The
Brits are magnanimous to extend the tenets of the Magna Carta to
those who consider murdering Brits to be their right and aholy duty!
The answer is that all the leading governments of the globe
have a narrow view of the global problem of terrorism. When it
pinches them, they scream "Ouch", but when it pinches others, they
call for restraint or dignify terrorism by asking for the elimination
of the causes of terrorism, call for restraint and respect for the
human rights of the terrorists!
And what do the terrorists say:
They call for death to all infidels. The terrorists are paranoid and
united in their murderous objective across the globe. It is only the
response to this unitary challenge of terrorism that is disjointed.
And as long as this response is also not as unitary and as determined
as the challenge f terrorism, there is no hope for an early or easy
victory over the challenge of Islamic Terrorism.
Moral of the
Story : Our hand that is manacled with the handcuffs of narrow
nationalistic opportunism and mutual rivalry has to be released so
that we can grapple manfully with Islamic Terrorism and save human
civilization from this mortal challenge.
Story Credits: War on Jihad