Manishw wrote:Another great article regarding Xinjiang from you Akalam Ji.
I would just like to put your viewpoint's in a few lines and
would appreciate any correction's that you would like to make.
Basically you feel that Asia(in particular china, India, Tibet,
Xinjiang, BD, Sri lanka etc.) have suffered quite a lot at the
hands of outside power's and feel that PRC is changing that
equation surely and steadily.India might follow Soon.You being
from BD yourself feel that smaller states(ala the above mentioned ones) have no future in the changing global scenario and should be part of wider bloc.If I presume correctly you want Integration in a separate fashion than what the PRC is doing(might is right stuff).
For this you would like to see a subcontinental bloc being formed and do understand that radical RoP has no place in it and a more palatable version has to evolve (ie moving towards spirituality).
In the medium to long term you feel balance of power will shift to a
more equilibrium position(ie east) and the Sub-continental block and PRC have to also learn to co-exist.
Regarding Pakistan and the Taliban stuff I am not clear what your opinions are and have one more doubt can a palatable version evolve? Kindly elucidate further and correct any mistakes.
Heck we seem to be on the same page at least if not the same line
as of now.
Thanks for your kind words Manishw Ji, and sorry for my delayed reply.
Yes, you have summarized my POV well, but since I am a perfectionist, I will refine it further in my own words.
Tibet and Xinjiang did not suffer that much from Western colonial powers, but are currently suffering under Han Chinese yoke, which seems to be pretty much permanent for the foreseeable future. But China, India, BD, Sri Lanka etc., pretty much all countries in Central, South and South East Asia - did suffer under the West and some Asian countries also suffered under Japan such as Korea and China. Japan was the first Asian power to rise and then with US help, the four tigers rose in ASEAN (Taiwan, S. Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore), then a second list of countries in ASEAN did improve a little such as Thailand, Malaysia and to some extent Indonesia.
Rise of China and Vietnam started more recently in early nineties and India also opened up soon after.
PRC's rise has been the most dramatic in recent years and India's rise is also picking up pace, for reasons I will explain in a theory I will present soon (briefly as you pointed out larger systems/countries/blocs have economies of scale and that translates into competitive edge compared to smaller states). Of course the authoritarian efficient decision making in PRC and Vietnam leadership is another edge they have at this time. I have seen this first hand, when I was engaged in a manufacturing business in Bangladesh in the 1990's, how government made a big difference in entire sectors of industry and moving them from S. Korea and Taiwan to PRC and Vietnam. Some in Bangladesh (including myself) had started athletic-shoe manufacturing a little earlier than this big push by PRC and Vietnam, but we were swept away by their govt. led push where party officials went to S. Korea and Taiwan and offered financially troubled owners (due to rising labor cost) rent-free buildings, tax incentives etc. and requested them to just put their machines in containers and move - we did not stand a chance to compete, because PRC and Vietnam soon became new centers for this manufacturing sector almost overnight. It became difficult for us to get order from buyers and some of these factories went bankrupt. Another difficulty was that Bangladesh has a small market, if we were within India or had access to Indian market, we could easily compete with Indian manufacturers, but that avenue was not open.
I think a sub-continental bloc is good for the very long term, as I think this recent extremist RoP phenomenon is a temporary and passing phase, this was not even prevalent on world stage before the Afghan Jihad. RoP is a shifting dynamic entity, within certain limits and its entirely possible IMHO to move towards more palatable and tolerant versions, when it is done from proper sources, namely from the old and established theological centers of learning and research, and when there is money behind the propagation of sound ideas and reform. Due to globalization, there is increasing contact between Muslims and there is some initial euphoria of some kind of Islamic common brother hood, now IMHO it is not bad to have OIC etc. to push for some common agenda's and pool resources to help each other, but the increasing contact has also resulted in observations that Islam is just a veneer, people do have local cultures and local concerns and Islam or any religion is just a part (with varying degrees of significance) of their total cultural make up, it can never replace the local and regional nature of human beings with their unique local ethno-linguistic identity that goes much further back in time than Islam or any other religion.
The center of gravity of worlds power is coming back to the Asian region slowly but surely, as it always was the status quo since the age of empires and civilization started since around 5,000-6,000 years ago, except for a hiatus of several centuries of Western domination. As immediate neighbor nations with common border, where the high Himalayan range is no longer as formidable a barrier as before (high mountain passes are open at least part of the year), and other road links being established via Myanmar, India (as well as South Asia) and PRC is poised to go into further economic integration which will result in higher levels of people to people contact, understanding and increasing business and interpersonal relationship. It is my belief that both India (and South Asia) and PRC will function kind of like binary stars where the smaller countries will revolve around them. So there is constant tug of war for influence between these two powers in the Asian neighbor-hood around them. Instead of getting into a corrosive and counter productive conflict, it will be better for the region and the world to manage this competition creatively so there is a win-win for the both sides and for other smaller countries around them. Because in the long run, neighbors are neighbors and they will be much more intertwined over time than countries and people who are far away, such as the West and even West Asia.
Regarding Pakistan and Taliban, my view is that it is a product of partition, they should not have broken off from the core, but once they have, with a flawed foundation (two nation theory), which was proven wrong in 1971, they started catching at straws to keep afloat. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and subsequent joint funding of Jihad from KSA-CIA and a conscious decision by a delusional elite to move towards a brotherhood type Islamism and use this Jihadi instrument against India in Kashmir and Taliban in Afghanistan, was short-sighted for Pakistan. They are reaping the fruits now. After 9/11 they are working to control the same monster they have created as a mercenary for the West. Perhaps with US help they will be able to turn around from this direction, if they cannot then there will be instability in Af-pak region, the exact form of which will be difficult to predict.
The Key question is I think if the US will go into a cold war rivalry with PRC, from this current lovers embrace and try to injure it by stabbing PRC in the back without provocation, when this lover is getting too strong and may set to surpass it. If the US is intent on doing this, then it will need bases nearby in Afghanistan and Korea/Japan. My hope is that an economically damaged USA steers to a more pragmatic route and winds down its hegemonic control of the world and relinquish some power to regional rising powers, unless it is required by situation where PRC is causing a lot of physical harm to its colonial subjects (Tibet/Xinjiang) or getting too aggressive with its less powerful neighbor countries. This is when the US and the West can bring a balance of force to resist harmful actions by a rogue power.
IMHO, it was a strategic mistake by the US (EU was forced to tag along later), just because of the greed of a few businessmen, to put all their eggs in one basket. Instead of giving the entire manufacturing market to PRC, in the name of free trade, to take advantage of authoritarian govt. and slave labor, so the trading businesses and companies like Walmart and other retailers could maximize their profit, they should have spread the market access to other low cost manufacturing centers, in ASEAN and South Asia, who could compete easily with PRC, if given the opportunity with the help of some quota and tariff. Its a little too late for that now, but still the US/EU should think about strategic implications when corporations make their business decisions. Free trade and maximizing profit looks great for short term profit making, but it can be destabilizing in the medium or longer term, which may end up costing a lot more to curb a rogue power that became overblown in too short a time, without developing an adequate sense of responsibility.
As PRC has become way too strong already, the West needs to balance it with India by giving some kind of preferential market access to South Asian countries, as a bloc, so on the one hand, India becomes powerful and at the same time countries like Bangladesh solves its demographic problems and Pakistan solves its extremism problem. Similar access should be given to low labor cost countries in ASEAN such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. There should be a deliberate push to take manufacturing away from PRC so it cannot utilize the lower cost labors in its interior and thus continue to achieve a high continuous growth rate. An economic attack to curb PRC's rise would be a more prudent route than an expensive hegemonic design with bases and fomenting insurgency at weak spots.
US permanent presence in Afghanistan or Korea/Japan is expensive and destabilizing, it should remove itself so regional powers can bring their own balance, it should reassert only in special cases when there is a necessity. Perhaps one good way to do this would be to maintain permanent bases, but reduce the personnel to absolute minimum, so there is the option of making a swift come back in short notice, when the need suddenly arises.
