3-15-06, 9:12 am

This is the second part of an article originally posted here:  

THERE are three elements of the US global strategy which India must know. One element has been pre-emptive strikes or what it calls a right to strike at any country if the US perceives that it is not pursuing policies that suit the American interests. The second one is the entire question of regime change. We have just heard Sushma Swaraj pointing out how 85 million dollars were sought for regime change policies? The third and the major one is essentially the US hegemony that is taking place in order to control the entire world. Now, in this situation, I can only quote what Harold Pinter, who won the 2005 Nobel Prize for literature,one of the well-respected persons of literature and art and intellect in the world. This is his acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize. I must congratulate him for his courage in actually saying this. He says:

* 'Its officially declared policy is now defined as ‘full spectrum dominance’. That is not my term, it is theirs. ‘Full spectrum dominance’ means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources.

* The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries…

* The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning”. Now, if this is the global scenario that is developing, what should be India’s position? What does the report filed on February 12, 2006 in London’s Sunday Telegraph say? It says, “Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran’s nuclear sites as a ‘last resort to block Teheran’s efforts to develop an atomic bomb'. A senior Pentagon adviser said, 'This is more than just the standard military contingency assessment. This has taken on much greater urgency in recent months'.'   WE'LL END UP AS LOSERS   The USA is preparing to strike Iran. It is preparing to strike Iran like it has struck Iraq 10 years ago through military strikes. It is preparing to use its ally in this region, Israel, in order to help its occupation of Iran following what it did in Iraq. All this is happening not only in terms of global military hegemonism but also political hegemonism. Why is all this happening?  Whether it is the occupation of Iraq; whether it is the targeting of Venezuela, which is the world’s second largest oil exporter; or whether it is the targeting of Iran. All this is for control of the world’s energy resources and it is this control of the world's energy resources thatwill affect us immediately and very acutely. If today war breaks out and the occupation of Iran happens, your oil prices internationally will zoom and pressure will be on you to increase the prices in the country. Each one of us will pay the price for the US occupation of Iran. We are paying the price for the US occupation of Iraq. We will pay the price for the US attack and occupation of Iran. Why are we subscribing to this strategy? That is the question. If the strategy is that in return you will get a better civil nuclear deal, then let me tell you the energy gain you will get through such a nuclear deal will be washed off by the international hike in oil prices and all that will be gone and you will end up as a loser.   It is not even a pecuniary economic gain. In fact, nuclear deal is a different subject. Even in terms of short-term economics, what the prime minister says is that India should be self sufficient in its nuclear energy. But nuclear energy is only three per cent of our total energy production today. However much you increase it, you will have to buy oil from abroad and if the price of that oil is raised because of this attack, then we are the ultimate losers. It does not help us even from that narrow point of view. Having said this, we say that we should oppose this position for another reason. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has identified 15 countries, which it suspects, are doing clandestine weaponisation and among them include South Korea, Taiwan and Brazil. But why are you singling out Iran? Why is there no word against Israel? In fact, that is the reason why Iran is targeted; it fits into the geo-politics of the US strategy.   WHO IS COMMUNAL?   Whenever we raise this matter, very interestingly, it is preached: “don’t communalise the issue”. It is not my fault that Iran is an Islamic country. It is not my fault that Iraq is an Islamic country. It is not my fault that even in Saudi Arabia most of the oil wells are there in the Shia-dominated areas. If the Americans start attacking and doing things in this way, it is not we who are to be blamed for communalising the situation in the world.  It is not those who oppose American actions who are communalising the situation in the world but it is the US itself and its actions that are communalising the situation in the world and they are the ones who are actually giving bliss to this communal wheel.   Here, I would like to quote Harold Pinter again. I am sure you will also enjoy this. He says that Bush, unfortunately, does not have good script writers and volunteers to be one. Since he has won the Nobel Prize in literature, I am sure, they will consider it positively. Here is what he writes for Bush in his speech. It begins by saying, “God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden’s God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam’s God was bad, except he did not have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don’t chop off people’s heads. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian, I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. My God is good. His God is bad”.   If one God is good and another God is bad, what else is this but communalisation? I am sure my esteemed colleagues will agree with me. That is exactly the point.   Finally, I would like to say as to who is communalising this entire thing. Actually, George Bush went to the extent of saying that God came to him and showed the path of enlightenment. Sushma Swaraj was talking about the Bodh tree. But then God made an enlightened appearance to him and said, “Attack Afghanistan; Attack Iraq”. Of course, he must have also said, “Attack Iran”. And now, we are all led to believe that God came to him in a wave of enlightenment and said, “Attack these countries”, and, therefore, he did it. What else is it but communalisation? Who is communalising it? Therefore, I would like to say, on this issue, let us build a national consensus.   However, Sushmaji, we do not like that national consensus and enlightened nationalism should depend on who is in power and who is in opposition. It should not be that one should talk in favour of the US while being here (treasury) and of enlightened nationalism after having gone there (opposition). We only want that such a situation must not arise. We humbly request you all to take steps in our country's interest, for our country's honour. In today's situation, we urge the government that when it comes to voting on the issue in the IAEA meeting – better if such a situation does not arise, but suppose it does arise – then please remain neutral instead of going with the US.   BUSH NOT WELCOME   George Bush is coming here. You please tell him that for us 'Atithi Devo Bhavah' (Guest is like a God) but in our mythology Vishnu, in disguise, comes to Mahabali and asks for three foot-lengths of land. He (Mahabali) tells Vishnu to take so much land wherever he likes. Then Vishnu gives up his disguise and measures three foot-lengths of land in such a way that one foot-length covers the whole of heaven and the other covers the whole of the earth. As for the third foot-length, Vishnu puts his foot on Mahabali's head, which was now the only thing that could be measured, and pushes him down to the netherland. So take my word, we won't say ' Atithi Devo Bhavah' if this kind of guest comes to us. We do urge you to reconsider this matter, maintain the country's dignity and defend its honour.   From People's Democracy