Anandabazar, one of the most popular Bengali Daily, published an interview with Tariq Ali on January 26th, 2006. A typical Tariq Ali makes us think about the issues around us. I am trying to reproduce this interview for people who will miss it because it was published in bengali.
ABP: You are saying that Iraq has become a colony again, although America has been saying that the situation in Iraq will improve after the elections. What's your view on this?
TA: The situation is Iraq hasn't changed even a bit. Even if America withdraws its troops in near future, there is a possibility that the nation will break into three parts. The northern area is a stronghold of the Kurds, and the southern part is influenced by Iran. In this situation, if the America-backed administration grows stronger in the central region, it will guarantee more American control over the oil fields of West Asia. What's more to being back in the colonial period?
ABP: Is it Iran’s turn now?
TA: It will not be possible to do similar things like Iraq in Iran – like overthrowing the government by sending armed forces. America may be able to destroy the nuclear sites of Iran by selective bombardments, but that will increase the adversity between these two nations to a dangerous level. Further, a section of Iran’s religious leaders indirectly supported the aggression over Iraq and Afghanistan. America will heavily risk its security if it attempts to attack Iran.
ABP: Is there no way to stop America from attempting to establish its own control over nation after nations, and thereby the entire world?
TA: The situation might change only if the influential countries in different regions of the world stand up against this together. In Latin America, this tendency is present in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia – apart from Cuba. If Brazil works together with them, America may find themselves in a tight situation in Latin America.
ABP: What do you think about Africa?
TA: Unfortunate. There was high hope that South Africa would be able to take leadership in Africa after the end of apartheid. But sadly, Johannesburg has converted into a big supporter of the “Washington-pact”.
ABP: In Asia?
TA: There is not a single country in Asia who can stand up to this. India was once a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, but unfortunately, the elite Indians have bowed down in front of the “Washington Consensus”. The less you say about Pakistan, the better. China doesn’t have a stable foreign policy, or, may be they are trying to view the international political situation with a long term approach. A few leaders like Mahathir have raised their voices against Washington, but that was too little to help. A South Asian Union would enable unrestricted business, travel, and exchanges between the countries in this region. That would allow them to stand up against the American imperialism together.
ABP: Would you include Afghanistan and Myanmar too in this South Asian Union?
TA: Why should I mind? But, in order to form this union, you will primarily need India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Because China’s economy is complimentary to the South Asian economy, it’s necessary that China gets closely attached to this union. Only then we will be able to find an answer to America’s dominance. Otherwise there is no way out of the mess created by this “Washington Pact” for the past one and half decades.
ABP: This would require advances in the Indo-Pak peace process. What do you think about the current improvement in the relations?
TA: The bilateral relationship is improving slowly, but not as expected. The defence expenditures of both the nations are still huge, which is practically unpardonable. Only a fraction of this could have caused a vast improvement of educational infrastructure or health and medicinal infrastructure, which would have had an effect on millions of peoples’ lives. Although the steps being taken for the improvement of rail and road links are likely to increase the goodwill amongst the people on both sides of the border. If the Kashmiris on both sides of the LOC had more means of exchange, it could have changed the nature of the relationship, and moreover, the families separated because of the adversity between the two nations would have had a chance to reunite. Neither Indian, nor the Pakistani government has been able to advance much in this respect. If we can’t leave the past (1947) behind, we will remain engulfed in the black hole we are in now.
Continued in Part II…
ABP: You are saying that Iraq has become a colony again, although America has been saying that the situation in Iraq will improve after the elections. What's your view on this?
TA: The situation is Iraq hasn't changed even a bit. Even if America withdraws its troops in near future, there is a possibility that the nation will break into three parts. The northern area is a stronghold of the Kurds, and the southern part is influenced by Iran. In this situation, if the America-backed administration grows stronger in the central region, it will guarantee more American control over the oil fields of West Asia. What's more to being back in the colonial period?
ABP: Is it Iran’s turn now?
TA: It will not be possible to do similar things like Iraq in Iran – like overthrowing the government by sending armed forces. America may be able to destroy the nuclear sites of Iran by selective bombardments, but that will increase the adversity between these two nations to a dangerous level. Further, a section of Iran’s religious leaders indirectly supported the aggression over Iraq and Afghanistan. America will heavily risk its security if it attempts to attack Iran.
ABP: Is there no way to stop America from attempting to establish its own control over nation after nations, and thereby the entire world?
TA: The situation might change only if the influential countries in different regions of the world stand up against this together. In Latin America, this tendency is present in countries like Venezuela, Bolivia – apart from Cuba. If Brazil works together with them, America may find themselves in a tight situation in Latin America.
ABP: What do you think about Africa?
TA: Unfortunate. There was high hope that South Africa would be able to take leadership in Africa after the end of apartheid. But sadly, Johannesburg has converted into a big supporter of the “Washington-pact”.
ABP: In Asia?
TA: There is not a single country in Asia who can stand up to this. India was once a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, but unfortunately, the elite Indians have bowed down in front of the “Washington Consensus”. The less you say about Pakistan, the better. China doesn’t have a stable foreign policy, or, may be they are trying to view the international political situation with a long term approach. A few leaders like Mahathir have raised their voices against Washington, but that was too little to help. A South Asian Union would enable unrestricted business, travel, and exchanges between the countries in this region. That would allow them to stand up against the American imperialism together.
ABP: Would you include Afghanistan and Myanmar too in this South Asian Union?
TA: Why should I mind? But, in order to form this union, you will primarily need India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Because China’s economy is complimentary to the South Asian economy, it’s necessary that China gets closely attached to this union. Only then we will be able to find an answer to America’s dominance. Otherwise there is no way out of the mess created by this “Washington Pact” for the past one and half decades.
ABP: This would require advances in the Indo-Pak peace process. What do you think about the current improvement in the relations?
TA: The bilateral relationship is improving slowly, but not as expected. The defence expenditures of both the nations are still huge, which is practically unpardonable. Only a fraction of this could have caused a vast improvement of educational infrastructure or health and medicinal infrastructure, which would have had an effect on millions of peoples’ lives. Although the steps being taken for the improvement of rail and road links are likely to increase the goodwill amongst the people on both sides of the border. If the Kashmiris on both sides of the LOC had more means of exchange, it could have changed the nature of the relationship, and moreover, the families separated because of the adversity between the two nations would have had a chance to reunite. Neither Indian, nor the Pakistani government has been able to advance much in this respect. If we can’t leave the past (1947) behind, we will remain engulfed in the black hole we are in now.
Continued in Part II…
No comments:
Post a Comment