Armitage's elaboration of 'Rogue States'
Men, Matters, Memories

By M L Kotru

It was a pure coincidence but an interesting one for all that. The very day Richard Armitage, the US Deputy Secretary of State was selling President Bush's nuclear defence shield in New Delhi and offering unilateral reduction of the US nuclear arsenal, war-heads included, as an inducement, the Chinese Prime Minister, Mr Zhu Rongji began his rather longish State visit to neighbouring Pakistan, assuring the country's military leader of China's continued support to their "all weather friendship" and Gen Musharraf, in turn, volunteering outright condemnation of the US defence shield.

It's another matter that India had even before Armitage's arrival rather hastily welcomed the Bush shield even as it expressed some reservations about the proposed reduction of nuclear arsenals. India's commitment to global denuclearisation was predictably reiterated. Armitage for his part exuded charm and short of saying "nice to meet you, long lost friend", he did everything in the book to win over total Indian support for the missile shield concept. The shield would not only take care of the defensive concerns of everyone; it would meet the needs of its friends as well. And India was beginning to be seen as a friend. This, when old allies like France, Germany and Britain, apart from an old foe-turned-lukewarm-friend the Russian Federation are not particularly enthused by the shield. The Russians, like the Chinese, have disapproved the plan and see in it as a clear US intent of going back on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty signed some three decades ago.

Armitage for his part stressed that the shield was essentially meant to serve as safeguard against the evil States -- rogue States he called these and included among them were Iran, Iraq and North Korea. The coincidence of the two visits is at all apparent though the timing, it must be conceded, was not pre-meditated. In fact US emissaries were about the same time engaed in consultations in Moscow and some other capitals was well. Armitage himself came to New Delhi after visits to Seoul and Tokyo. Of interest to me was Amritage's elaboration of "rogue States" and his reference in particular to "some in India's neighbourhood". Now, it so happens that apart from Afghanistan, Pakistan and China too happen to be India's neighbours. He could have easily named a Talibanised Afghanistan as a "rogue" State rather than refer to our neighbourhood. The US ;has had a running battle with the Taliban and indeed even mounted a missile attacks on Osama bin Laden's hideout in Afghanistan who it holds responsible for multiple terrorists attacks against US targets within the without what country. Afghanistan is currently groaning under the impact of UN sanctions. But Armitage had other things on his mind. These he mentioned while answering a question saying "We have questions about Pakistan... It's well known and you and your colleague (of the media) will known even better.... These we refer to as hard cases." So Pakistan, it would no appear, is seen as one of the hard cases. Read this against the backdrop of the State Department Review on International Terrorism for the year 2000, largely representing the views of the former Clinton administration, and you will discover that the Bush administration is taking an even dimmer view of Pakistan as a breeder and promoter of terrorism in the region. The Review - 2000 said everything short of naming Pakistan a terrorist State. It named it as an active supporter of the Taliban, of funding extremist madarassas, of supporting terrorists operating in Jammu and Kashmir etc, etc. To go by the impression that Richard Armitage left here, the Bus administration may have some harsh truths to tell to Pakistan. Which again is a matter for the US and Pakistan to sort out. For, in the final analysis we must accept the basic truth that the conduct of any country's foreign relations or relations with individual countries is determined by its own national interest. While the Armitage stance may seem to suit us just now we must not draw any hasty conclusions however attractive that might seem.

Pakistan's beleagured military dictator, Parvez Musharraf has own compulsions to read much more into what Premier Zhu Rongji has been saying the first two days of his visit to Islamabad. On Kashmir, for instance-never mind the Pakistani gloss put on it the Chinese leader said no more than repeat the familiar Chinese position that India and Pakistan must resolve the problem ago which endorsed the Pakistani position. In any case, India has never said that it is opposed to resolving its problems with Pakistan, Kashmir included. The Simla accord and the Lahore declaration are nothing if not a declaration of intent to solve bilateral problems through peaceful negotiations. Musharraf will, of course, not like to tell his guest that the Indians are refusing to talk because he (Musharraf) will not stop sending terrorists across the border into Jammu and Kashmir. Perhaps Musharraf believes that giventhe kind of "all weather" friendship existing between Beijing and Islamabad it is not necessary to say everything for the record. For didn't we see Gen. Musharraf happily ensconced in a Beijing hotel even as he ordered his men to launch the attack on Kargil or didn't we see him opting out of the reception line set up by then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to welcome Atal Behari Vajpayee on his bus ride to Lahore.

The Chinese, I must admit, are being very correct on dispelling any misgivings New Delhi may have entertained over the Sino-Pak euphoria now on full display in Pakistan during Rongji's visit. It is not usual for leaders visiting another country inviting a diplomat from a third country to a briefing for the media which is what the visiting Chinese party in Islamabad did when they invited a representative of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad to be present at such an event early this week. The message was conveyed loud and clear: the ties between China and Pakistan are not directed against any country. The spokesperson - unusual for Chinese diplomats who don't usually take questions at such briefings - told a reporter that "India is a close neighbour and over the years we have developed good relations with it. We would like the ties to develop further. Our relationship is not directed against any country and we want to develop peaceful relations with SouthAsian countries, including India". The Chinese Premier repeated much the similar thought at the State banquet in Islamabad when he expressed hope that in the new country, countries in South Asia would live together in peace and amity, resolve differences, expand regional cooperation and realise common development. These are the kind of sentiments which leaders routinely express on such occasions. But prudence requires we make a note of it.

The truth is that China has been a regular arms supplier to Pakistan, it has helped modernise its military, provided it with missiles and missile technology and now Mr Rongji has pledged comprehensive economic support. Pakistan has in turn been a loyal friend and one which made a painless gift of Kashmiri territory to China, ceding to it vast areas to help build the Karakoram roadway. With India, on the other hand, there are long-standing disputes which even as we are told are being addressed continue to hang fire. The good things is that the channels of communication have continued to remain open for the past few years. High level visits have also taken place. These do need to be stepped up.

But in the context of the US missile shield proposal it is important that India engages Beijing in serious dialogue. The shield may sound good to the Americans and those on its periphery but let us not underestimate the potentially dangerous downstream consequences of the missile defence scheme for India. It has been argued by the Government that the endorsement of the shield by it represents mere recognition of a paradigm shift away from the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. It should not turn into our surrendering the nation's strategic autonomy. The short terms gains may seem attractive enough but the potenial long term adverse consequences of a Chinese nuclear build up in conjunction with a bankrupt nuclear Pakistan, armed with an operational nuclear force and dominated by short-sighted military leaders, could turn into a military nightmare.

So, the people decree.........
Yours Randomly,

Dr R L Bhat

........the laws are for the lowly. Yes, it is only the ordinary folks, the people who cannot ride the la that are condemned to obey them, respect them and have their lives ruined over slight breaches of law. Of course, it is the common law abiding people who are so disabled. For, the common folks too, can get to order the laws around provided they have the capacity, the will and the caliber to do it. There is no class difference, here (or, any where else for that matter). In fact, the distinction of the classes is but one of the contrivances-- (technologies, as we must call them)-- the enterprising ones devised to circumvent other laws and rules. You for example, just can't beat Lallooji and Rabridevi in their lowly origins. And they are giving the whole tribe of royals, un-royals and dis-loyals a good run for their money. Yesterday (or, was it ten years ago?), they did it with popular appeal; today they can do it with hard currency and loads of it.

Yes, the prater of classes and exploitations is so much humbug. Merit- the caliber the will and the capacity to do-- is all that matters. If you have it (the capacity to ride the laws rough-shod, that is) you can always get away with anything- a score-full of scandals, a dozen scams, piles of cases of unaccounted wealth and income... anything. And, prove yourself a messiah of the people too, if you have an inclination or the need to do so. As Sushri Jayalalitha did it the other day. Democracy, did you say? But, democracy is not necessary for these calibered people, who have the technology to achieve; it is just one of the tools, albeit a bit more handy. For they can do it in any other system. They can it in a dictatorship, as the now much maligned Nawaz Sharief of Pakistan shoed by his flourishing under the iron-rule of the late Zia and also became a popular leader. They can do it under communism too, as the rise of Joseph Stalin exemplified. They easily do it under a democracy as dozens of examples from contemporary India prove.

The thing that matters is technology. No, not the ordinary technology that gives spaces-ships, computers and gene-chips, any fool of a biologist, physicist or a space scientist can invent those technical improvisations. This technology is more subtle. More slavating. While and ordinary person would go shamefaced all his/her life for being convicted of a minor offence, they who have mastered the technology would wear the most damning indictment as a badge of honour. While the commoners would get apologetic over an extra pair of shoes, a bit of ostentatious spending and every ounce of extra income, the 'technology' savvy not only wallow in ostentation, indulgence and hordes of wealth but also proclaim it unabashed over micro- and megaphones. And, they get people to listen to them, to believe in their truths. That is 'technology' at its best.

For this 'technology' is about way-laying people and winning them over. It is about manipulating situations and moulding people to your own ends, while appearing to be doing the people good, saving and succoring them. The old-fashioned called it leadership and invested it (quite un-necessarily, one sees now!) with the burden of principles, sincerity, and truth, even ideology. The old goat Gandhi went around half-naked all his life feding on goat-milk. (How providential that Manekaji was not around then, or the poor soul would've spent all his life in prison without even the consolation of putting the Raj-police in the dock!) Some new technologists would tell that Gandhi had an interest, a selfish motive too, in all that 'struggle-for-freedom' campaign. And, you would not be able to contradict him. That is force of 'technology': it make impossible immanent, and quite easily. See, all those learned, knowing, highly educated Madrasis have not been able to contradict Jaya-mama in one single word. It proves that this world of enlightened, aware, and free people have resolved not give much credence to those old-time virtues and values; that, the laws are only for the lowly, to be observed by them, to be obeyed by them, to be applied to them alone. Indeed, there had been enough earlier indications of this resolution of the people. Up in the hills of Himachal they returned Sukhram without a wink; out in the east the late Kalpnath Rai had been chosen even as the gravest offence of sheltering anti-nationals lay plastered to his persona. From the central India people despite the then very live Hawala scam had elected his near namesake Kalp Nath, as did the people in the western flanks favour Buta Singh inspite of severe indictments. Now, in electing Jaya with a thumping majority, the people of the South India have put their seal of approval upon what their northern brethren have been saving and showing all the time.

And that, very clearly, is don't besmear the fair names with foul mud, it simply does not stick; don't get self-righteous over these so-called mis-deed because they just ain't so. And, don't ever let your lowly laws get equal with their darlings, for they don't apply to them, won't be applied to them! Thus it came to pass that while the lowly collectors (comparatively lowly that is, otherwise they too are highs in their own realms and lots of laws don't apply to them either)... so while the 'lowly' DCs took time to examine the election codes and applied it to Jaya in many constituencies, Fatima Biwi didn't lose any time in inviting her to form the government. She is the Governor, you know. And, knows all about the technology of laws and peoples, which you may not. But then the ignoramii of this land caught in the time-wrap of values and virtues do not know a lot of things. Technology, for one. Power of the people to undo themselves, for a second. The insignificance of laws before the men and women of significance, for a third.