Commentary

13th June 1999

Growing influences in the world equation

By Mervyn de Silva

Vesak. Shantih, Shantih! No, not in Asia.

Religion is the most powerful mobilising force of violent conflict. Consider the Middle-East, the Arab Middle-East. Hamas and Hizbollah, the vanguard of the Palestinian struggle have seized the initiative from Chairman Yasser Arafat's PLO. And in the Jewish camp, the resurgence of Jewish Zionist group, many of them who are armed with the most sophisticated weapons. Even Prime Minister Netanyahu was not extremist enough to satisfy these new ideological, political forces.

The Israeli conflict is as old as Kashmir. The hardline Benjamin Netanyahu was not tough and unyielding to the Palestinians led by Chairman Yasser Arafat. The once respected unchallenged PLO, pioneer of the Palestinian struggle has steadily lost his influence as the unrivalled leader once of the Intifada, the Palestinian independence, the demand for statehood, and also on the United Nations (and President Clinton, the twice elected leader and of the country who is now popularly labelled "the sole superpower). And neither, the UN nor the US has failed as negotiator, or agent of what is now identified by the diplomats and academics as "conflict resolution".

And now these conflicts have invited the engagement of third parties, neutral nations, frequently called "neutral, well-intentional neighbours". India, the big neighbour offered its good offices. But Sri Lanka's popularly elected administration did not accept. India failed largely because of Tamilnadu, a large Indian State, deeply committed to the welfare of the Sri Lankan Tamil, certainly of the Tamils living in the Island's north, a boat-ride from the Tamilnadu coast - a Tamilnadu, generous with arms and training of the separatist Eelam guerrillas. Delhi was concerned with Tamilnadu opinion and the change in Sri Lanka's foreign policy, with the elections which placed President Jayewardene's party in office, a party which had excellent relations with the United States - a striking departure from the foreign policy adopted by the strictly non-aligned outlook of Prime Minister Sirima Bandaranaike - a policy friendly to Pakistan, a member of the US led NATO camp.

China Factor

The non-aligned policy of the Bandaranaike regime was by no means anti-China. On the contrary, the island pursued a very friendly China policy. Thus, Sri Lanka's extraordinary initiative in convening a six nation conference - plainly an essay in "conflict resolution".

The question now is how the PRC will react to the Kashmir crisis?

The China in this the last decade of this century will assume its "natural" role of the future, "Superpower" of Asia. This explains Pakistan's diplomatic reaction, an automatic gesture. India and China have clashed on a contested border. Beijing commentators do not take to Delhi's attitude on Tibet.

In this region, inherited conflicts can quite easily trigger armed clashes, certainly border confrontations over Nehru's Kashmir.

Islamic revival

India has Moslem countries as neighbours - apart from its own huge Moslem community and Bangladesh to Malaysia and Indonesia which right now faces a vigorous (post-Suharto) Islamic insurgence. Israel, a vigorous democracy has seen even the father-figure Yasser Arafat increasingly under attack. This is certainly why President Clinton played a widely publicised visit to Mr. Arafat's headquarters. Washington sees Islamic revivalism a more dangerous threat than the traditional post-war enemy than a defunct communist movement, a global post-war menace.

China will be the crucial factor in Asia, since Japan seems content with its current role as an economic Superpower. Japan has no reason to be nervous about the Islamic revival in the manner that China and India need to. But from Israel, the Jewish state to South-East, Indonesia and Malaysia, foreign policy-makers and diplomats will be compelled to push the "red alert" as Asia, Europe (Yugoslavia, Albania) and most of all Russia feel the challenge of an Islamic revivalism.

As for Israel keeping an eye on the Lebanon front. I recall what Shimon Peres, then "boss" of Histradut, told me in a conversation long before the name of Ayatollah Khomeini had made the front page. Peres was the trade unionist. He said, but "We do not need to fear Arafat".

The Arab world is the biggest oil producer. Caltex and Stanvac would prefer its stock-pile and control prices. Hence its "gaud" of Shah's Iran. It was an Islamic priest, an exile in Paris who led the revolution that made Iran a major player on the post-war stage.

How long would be our region the Indian sub-continent? Historians of the next century will give more attention to Ayatollah Khomeini than Marx and Lenin.

Hulftsdorp Hill

Editorial/Opinion Contents