WEB DESK: For seventy three days, Indian Army has been attacking and killing helpless and unarmed Kashmiris in Indian occupied Kashmir.
After Pakistan’s Prime Minister decided to highlight these atrocities in the UN General Assembly, the attack on an Indian army base in Uri (resembling the Pathankot attack) left none in doubt about its perpetrators. Who, except the Indians, would want to embarrass Pakistan at this moment? Not surprisingly, India has immediately pointed its finger on Pakistan.
What continues to stigmatise the UN is non-implementation of the resolutions (dating back to 1948) of its Security Council to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir. It is amazing how, for nearly seven decades, no permanent member of the Security Council forced the Council to fulfil its commitments as per the resolutions it passed about holding a plebiscite in Kashmir.
Doesn’t the continued neglect of its obligations reflect the Council’s partisanship that ignores India’s continued massacre of the Kashmiris? Is this what nations ‘unite’ to watch as apathetic spectators under the UN flag? Or does this neglect (that led to three India-Pakistan wars) promote the cause of weakening Pakistan – the sole Muslim nuclear power?
Wasn’t permitting the invasion of Iraq on false allegations of possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) another act of partisanship? This invasion to ‘democratise’ Iraq – in reality, a nefarious plan to control the Straits of Hormuz – was to prevent China from accessing the oil resources of ‘economically sanctioned’ Iraq under Saddam Hussain. The invasion of Iraq also ushered in the ‘Arab Spring’ that was to destabilise the Middle East for installing proxies that could ensure low-priced oil supply to the West. But now the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB) have released two reports that the supporters of the ‘Arab Spring’ (or the ‘Great Game’) will find hard to swallow.
According to the IMF report released last week(in time for the UN General Assembly to focus on it) the decade-long armed conflict in the Middle East – until now proudly touted by the West as the Arab Spring -has pushed the war-torn Middle Eastern states into lasting socio-economic decline because bulk of their productive capital has been destroyed.
Last week, the WB too released a report according to which the burden of millions of refugees and displaced persons is largely being borne by neighbouring developing countries – Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan (oddly, not mentioning Pakistan) – and according to the IMF, public services there have been over-burdened and warned about the fallout from poverty escalation in these countries.
Due to massive destruction of personal wealth and income earning venues, rising youth unemployment, and illiteracy among children, the human capital is deteriorating. Rapidly sliding growth, soaring fiscal deficits and decimated labour markets across the region demand concerted efforts by donor states and co-ordination among humanitarian aid and development bodies.
According to the IMF, for Syria, Yemen and Libya, the war has been impoverishing. Due to a4-year long civil war, Syria’s GDP has contracted by over 50 percent. In 2014 alone, Yemen’s economy contracted by 25-35 percent, and economic activity in Libya fell by 24 percent. Worse still, the massive infrastructure reconstruction cost will far exceed their ability to generate resources domestically.
Strains on governance and inability to collect sufficient tax revenue will have profound consequences. Pressed by dwindling revenues, these states could fiddle with exchange rates to cut trade deficits, and biased taxation could worsen this crises. Given this backdrop, despite miniscule state spending, war-torn countries could suffer from chaos-fuelling high inflation.
Apparently, the IMF and the WB estimates and predictions were triggered by the chaos EU states now confront due to the almost daily arrival of asylum-seekers from these war-torn countries – development that is causing social unrest, creating security risks, above all, threatening the EU regimes(German regime topping that list) fuelled by reactions to accommodating the asylum-seekers.
While the IMF and the WB reports plead for concerted efforts by donor states and co-ordination among humanitarian aid and development bodies, they don’t demand investigating the justifications for invading(the now war-torn) Middle Eastern countries, and exposing the characters that approved perpetration of these atrocities that jeopardised the future of hundreds of millions.
These atrocities went unpunished because every inquiry was partisan, be it over the causes of the 9/11 tragedy and its perpetrators and justification of the US global “war-on-terror”, or alleged presence of WMD in Iraq, or the rationale behind invading Libya; they justified these monstrosities and made President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair the saviours of this planet.
The latest of these inquiry reports are the Chilcot Report and the British foreign affairs select committee’s report on intervention in Libya. But it can be predicted with certainty that, like Bush and his cabinet members at the time, neither Blair nor Cameron will be held accountable for knowingly approving invasions that turned this planet into an ever-expanding battlefield.
Following the release of the foreign affairs select committee’s report on Libya, an editorial in a top-ranking British newspaper advised the EU not to “overlook the fate of one of Africa’s best-resourced countries; bloody chaos there could all too easily find its way to Europe’s shores”. So much for the newspaper’s concern for accountability of those who perpetrated this chaos!
The select committee’s report says that if the primary purpose of invading Libya was “to protect civilians in Benghazi then this objective was achieved in less than 24 hours”. But Cameron and, French President, Nicholas Sarkozy, let the invasion continue without sufficient analysis of the intelligence reports; apparently both wanted to topple Qadhafi and install a proxy.
Here it is worth mentioning that the entire House of Commons (557 MPs excluding 13 Labour MPs) backed Cameron’s decision to intervene in Libya. This majority included the fellow who is the lead author of this report – foreign affairs committee chairman Crispin Blunt. The sole plus of the report is that it regrets nothing being done for stabilising Libya after Qadhafi’s overthrow.
Despite this horrible record, the West insists on practice of its version of democracy everywhere. Throughout 20th century, wasn’t this brand of democracy -product of imperial mindset – used to pursue the objective of re-colonising the rest of the world by installing proxies in the former British, Belgian, Dutch, and Hispanic colonies, and isn’t that policy being pursued now?
Besides just ceremonially ‘discussing’ the ongoing armed conflicts, will the UN General Assembly emphatically mandate shunning all (overt and covert) versions of imperialism? It seems unlikely because while Britain, Belgium, Holland, and Spain have drudgingly taken the back seat, the US is now the sole imperial power and has unlimited craving for covertly ruling every corner of the world.
Source: Business Recorder