Part one: Some portions of the book I am reading these days…

“We should never make the mistake of assuming that the rightness of cause can even eventually ensure its success. We live in a world of power. Power exercised without regard to morality is a crime against humanity; but morality cannot prevail without the backing of power”

G.S. Bajpai in a lecture on the balance of power.

 

” The defence expenditure of United states of America, in 2003, exceeded the combined total of the next 15 biggest defence spenders, also, in the same year, it spent more on military R&D than the combined total of the next 6 major spenders.”

“Japan is re-inventing itself as a major military and political power. Its post-world war 2 Constitution debars Japan from maintaining ‘Land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential’. This constitutional provision was interpreted imaginatively on several occasions, commencing from 1954, when it was re-interpreted as permitting the maintenance of ground, maritime and air self-defence forces in order to ‘preserve peace and independence of the nation and maintain internal security.’ In 1992, it was decided to employ them abroad specifically for UN peacekeeping operations. In 2001, self-defense force was authorised to support the US and other countries in combating ‘newly discovered post 9/11′ terrorism. In 2003, the requirement of UN mandate was dropped and Japanese units were sent to Iraq for ‘humanitarian assistance and reconstruction’. Defence expenditure was kept down to 1 percent of GDP till 1987 but due to spectacular growth of Japanese economy, in absolute terms defence expenditure kept on growing rapidly. Japan now has a defence budget of around US$ 50 billion, enabling it to maintain a 240,000 strong self-defence force armed with the latest conventional weapons.” ( India has a defence budget of mere US$ 22 billion supporting far more larger force than that of Japan)

 

“During the last 8 or 10 years, it has been a convenient policy for successful politicians in the United states and some other countries to blame for everything Islamic fundamentalism. These is no doubt that there is connection between the two but there have been non-Islamic or extra-Islamic, or intra-Islamic terrorist activities in recent world history, in Oklahoma in the United States, in the LTTE movement in Sri Lanka, in the Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, in case of provisional IRA in Ireland and in the terrible holocaust of cambodia. What is common to all this is not Islam but the multiplier effect of modern communications and advertisement in exaggerating differences.”

 

“There was no consensus on the definition of terrorism at the world Summit in New York in 2005. Some countries insist that ‘freedom fighters’ should be exempted from this definition.”

 

“India has always sought to reassure its neighbours that it respects their independence and sovereignty. What it regards as unhelpful is the display of narrow nationalism based on hostility towards India that often becomes a cover for failure to deliver on promises  made to their own peoples.”

 

Karl Deutsc called a pluralistic security community as one where “there is real assurance that the members of that community will not fight each other physically but will settle their disputes in some other way.”

 

“The Arab nation has a common language and culture and largely a common religion; none of this has helped cooperation or even prevent intra-Arab war. Europe has a common religion and a common Graeco-Roman culture; in May 1910 the sovereigns of Europe gathered in London for the funeral of King Edward VII. Among them was the German Kaiser, who was a  member of the British royal family, which in turn was related to all the other rulers who were there, including Russia, Austria, Belgium, Italy; there could hardly be more to common culture than belong to same geographic space, the same history and culture, even the same family; but a year alter all of them were at war. It is true that cultural commonality is not a hindrance to cooperation; history does not show that it is necessarily a help.

 

Indian Foreign policy: Challenges and Opportunities ed. Atish Sinha and Madhup Mohta

Post a Comment