Belarus: Straight from the Horse's Mouth

Belarus has received extensive coverage in the media with the recent elections and the opposition protests that followed the elections. I had a chance to chat with a Belarusian cab driver living in Boston. His perspective, which I’ve transcribed below, is interesting if only because Lukashenko supporters tend not to receive much attention in the mainstream media.

What do you think of the recent elections in Belarus?
You mean, about Lukashenko? I like Lukashenko. I think what the opposition is doing is wrong. They don’t have much support in Belarus. The Americans and Russians don’t like Lukaschenko but he’s good for Belarus. In Russia and other countries, people are not getting pensions and salaries. In Belarus, we get both on time. Also in Russia, there are a few rich people but most people are having a hard time.

What about some of the countries in Eastern Europe? Like Czech Republic or Hungary? They are doing pretty well, right?
I was in Prague for a few years. I drove a cab there as well. It’s not like it used to be during the Soviet times. Now some people have lots of money, there are shops full of goods. But most people don’t have anything. It’s hard to afford anything. In Belarus, everyone is equal and life is good. No crime. Everyone gets their check on time. That is why people support Lukashenko. He thinks about Belarus first. That’s why the Russians and the Americans don’t like him.

How long have you lived in the US?
I’ve lived in the US for 16 years. But even the US is not what it used to be. Bush has given it all away. $3 for gas! Three dollars!!! Same thing in Russia, and Yugoslavia. Things were better before. I’ve been to Yugoslavia. The best in Europe. Wide roads, clean everything, everything worked…And then it all collapsed. It is nothing now.

You know, I worked under Lukashenko, a long time back. He was the president of the village and I worked as a carpenter for him. He is a decent man. He thinks of Belarus. He’s good for Belarus.

Related Links:
Poland Revives Cold-War Tactic: Democracy Via Radio

Tags: Belarus, Politics, Current Affairs, Democracy, Lukashenko, Economy, Elections

India: The New Darling of Conservatives

India has received increased attention from the US in recent years, especially under George W Bush. "Bush has been good for India," says C. Rajamohan, a political scientist at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. "More has happened between India and the US in the last four years than in the last 40." President Clinton made great efforts to improve relations with India and he remains wildly popular there. However, the State Department under Clinton regularly chided India about its nuclear program. The US also kept a wary eye on Indian efforts to fight separatist movements in Kashmir and the northeastern states, urging the Indian government to respect civil rights and such. Under Bush, many of these policies have been ignored and last month India was offered civilian nuclear technology, albeit subject to approval by the US Congress.

Historically, Indo-US relations have been affected by India's affinity to the non-aligned bloc and to the erstwhile Soviet Union, and by close relations between the US and India's arch rival Pakistan. Their oftentimes-frosty relationship started changing for the better with the end of the cold war; the liberalization of the Indian economy in the early nineties; and with the shift in Indian foreign policy from the Nehru-inspired doctrines that focussed heavily on the eastern-bloc and the developing world to a more national-interest based policy.

The Americans see in India a potential ally, an ally in the fight against terrorism, a genuine democracy in a rough neighborhood, and a counterweight to China. There are conservatives in Washington who believe that events in New York, Madrid, London, Beslan, West Bank, and Delhi are all connected, a part of the same struggle against Islamic terrorism, a struggle against Islam. India is a secular democracy, a country with its own struggles against Islamic extremism - and this makes it a natural ally for conservatives with an anti-Muslim bias. India’s democratic traditions and as of yet non-threatening economic power appeal to Sinophobes. "China clearly plays a big role in this. This deal (to supply nuclear technology) was basically put together by a small number of officials. Some of those officials are the neoconservatives who see China as a looming threat. For them, the problem isn't that India has nuclear weapons; it's that they don't have enough nuclear weapons. They want to encourage (India) as a nuclear ally against China," says Joseph Cirincione of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

India’s appeal is not confined to a few elite neocon policy wonks in the Bush White House. Visitors to conservative Web sites tend to be fascinated by India as well. A comment at one such Web site reads, "India and the US will be great and mighty allies against Islamic terrorism, Chinese Communism, and leftist multiculturalism. The beginning of this new era starts now." Another visitor finds comfort in India’s pro-American stance (as evidenced by a recent survey conducted using somewhat dubious methods) and uses this chance to vent against the anti-American, and therefore ungrateful, Europeans. "One of the primary reasons for anti-Americanism is the resentment of a dependent group on their provider. Europe depends on America for military protection, without which they would have to provide for their own military. They can't do this without giving up their socialized medicine, so the resentment builds."

"That was back when Europeans were never asked to do or contribute anything to deserve continued US protection. Years of American paternalism allowed Western Europe to believe it could afford the socialist welfare state without needing to sacrifice anything for its own defense (let alone that of others). The EU has over 130 million more people than the US, yet all of Europe contributes only 6000 troops in Afghanistan compared to America's 18,000. Socialism, made possible by 60 years of US protection courtesy of the US taxpayer, has spoiled Europeans with a sense of entitlement that has bred indolence and cowardice," writes another reader.

A well-armed India, according to the conservatives, would defend itself without any help from the United States (unlike the Europeans), and it would play an important role in containing the threat from the twin evils of Red China and Islamic extremism. John Hillen, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, said sharing technology and information was particularly vital as Washington sought to build stronger military ties to India. "You cannot underestimate the strategic importance of what the president was trying to do in India. It shifts the geopolitical plates of the world in the most fundamental way since Nixon went to China," said Hillen. A defense industry executive, who also asked not to be named, underscored strong U.S. corporate interests in expanding trade with New Delhi, saying he had visited India three times in the past 90 days and would soon return.

India, especially under the BJP, has supported the US positions and policies on numerous occasions. Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace lists some of 'US-friendly' Indian actions, including enthusiastic support for Bush's Ballistic Missile Defence ('Star Wars') plans; silence over the abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, India's offer of military bases for the war in Afghanistan after 9/11; endorsement of the US position on climate change, including its latest avatar, the 'Asia-Pacific Partnership'; and of course, the September and February votes against Iran. To this list, Tellis, adds 30 India-US military exercises involving all three services, 50 high-level military conferences; $990 million worth of American arms imports; and India's budding relations with Israel.

Of course, the conservatives are far from being a monolithic when it comes to foreign policy. Isolationists, for example, are not very keen on cooperation with India or any other country for that matter. Economic protectionists seethe at the growth of outsourcing to India. But in general, India finds a favorable audience among conservatives. "It would be worthwhile to mention that the current goodwill towards India is not out of any sudden love for India, but the result of the perception of the "neocons" of the Bush administration that see alliance with India as a key to maintaining balance in this region, and also for checking the undesirable moves of Iran and China in the long run. The intolerance of any emerging power bloc capable of challenging the United States' interests and power in any region of the world has also encouraged the United States to develop good relations with India. The United States has not abandoned its policy of searching for such allies which could be helpful in promoting its interests," says Annapurna Nautiyal.

Tags:
India, Iran, Nuclear , United States, China, Terrorism, Current Affairs, Bush, Islam, Conservatives, Neocons, Foreign Policy

Next Stop: Tehran?

Just in from the New Yorker:

The Iran Plans

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium...

See also: Iran in a Nutshell.

Tags: Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Politics, Current Affairs, News, Opinion, Seymour Hersh

Iran in a Nutshell

Iran successfully tested its second new torpedo recently, the latest weapon to be unveiled during war games in the Gulf, that the military said are aimed at preparing the country's defenses against the United States.

Iran's latest tests are a warning to the US and the world. Iran can defend itself. Iran will not give up easily. Any military action against Iran will lead to many, many casualties. This is the message behind the tests, the military games, and the speeches.

It is widely believed that Iran's nuclear program is not entirely meant for peaceful purposes. The options, as far as attempting to stop Iran's dangerous nuclear dabbling, are outlined below.

One option is to do nothing. Another option involves economic sanctions. Then there's multilateral diplomacy with or without military action. Military intervention itself can be limited to air strikes on strategic targets or it can be a full-scale invasion.

Doing nothing is an option, but one that is most easily dismissed given Iran's penchant for supporting anti-Israeli militant groups, and it's ability to influence events in Iraq and the surrounding region.

Diplomacy, while preferable to the use of military force, may not work, as Britain, France, and Germany have found to their dismay. Diplomatic efforts under the auspices of the UN face opposition from Russia and China.

Military action would most likely lead to disruption in oil supplies and send oil prices skyrocketing. Supplies are tight and production is at or near capacity. Also, the US forces are stretched by operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and domestic opinion is generally against military involvement in Iran, especially if it leads to heavy casualties and additional financial burden. Any sort of military intervention then is likely to need military and financial support from the Europeans and the rest of the world.

An attack on Iran, it can be argued, will be painted as an attack on Islam, creating more tensions and inflaming anti-western hatred in the Middle East. There is a distinct possibility that any western involvement in military action against Iran will make the participating countries more vulnerable to terror attacks.

The issue is complex, the situation tense, and the repercussions of any action (or inaction) are likely to be grave. Ideally, the first step in dealing with Iran would be unanimous censure from the Security Council. Failure to act could lead to a disastrous nuclear confrontation in the Middle East, a situation that most nations would not want to be responsible for. This point made through a combination of public and private maneuvering may just convince Russia and China to support a censure motion. The GCC and OIC must condemn Iran – a nuclear Iran can and might just be tempted to destabilize the entire region and the hostilities might not be reserved for Israel alone.

Economic sanctions are not usually very effective as the evidence in Iraq has shown but sanctions might be preferable to military action. As a last resort, bombing of strategic facilities should be considered. (See Osirak.)

(Of course, it would help if Washington didn’t promise nuclear technology to India or any other nation, while trying to prevent others from obtaining or developing similar capabilities.)

Update:

Bolton Hints at Other Options for Iran.

Tags: Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Politics, Current Affairs, News, Opinion