Lords Of Hindsight Retract

P Kharel

In global power politics, the focus is on lording it over others. Economic interests reign supreme in the conduct of foreign relations, often couched in diplomatic niceties and formal trappings. Hidden if feasible but explicit when it comes to a crunch, trade, commerce and industry are the ultimate basis of bilateral and multilateral ties. 

Noted geo-strategist and former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger years ago confessed that use of nuclear weapons could not be ruled out if conditions seriously threatened American industry. There was hardly a murmur of protest from any significant quarters in the US or its first cousin continent of Europe. This spring’s Ukraine crisis reiterated the probability of nuclear war if nuclear club members did not — or were not made to — exercise restraint. Others with ambitions to enhance their role in setting international agendas and extend their influence must be assessing the war in Ukraine and visualise future scenarios that could involve them directly or impact their core interests.  

Hence policies sidelined since long might be dusted for a comprehensive review in the emerging new world order. Some previous approaches will be revived perhaps with adaptations; fresh thought will be given to existing alliances and new ones are likely to be formed gradually. In short, the power equations worldwide will witness strikingly different scenarios.

Changed climes

Strange are the ways how analysts switch sides and views with the passage of time, throwing to the winds the basics of the contexts and conditions in which actions occurred the way they did. Someone, today, might be termed extremist, terrorist, radical, reactionary or rebel, only to be hailed as a revolutionary or visionary with positively definitive ideas, once the winds of circumstances change. 

Richard Nixon, of the 1972 Watergate infamy, was rehabilitated by the start of the new millennium 30 years after he was compelled to resign but obtained a quick pardon from Gerald Ford, his vice president who stepped into the vacant shoes at the White House. Furious over the betrayal of their faith, American voters two years later reduced Ford to an “also a president” when he lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. Angela Merkel, hailed as the backbone of European leadership during her 16 years as Germany’s Chancellor, is now being questioned for lack of vision regarding the latitude and a long rope given to Russian President Vladimir Putin. 

Confused and hopping angry over Russian action in Ukraine since March, the European Union of late has been thinking aloud as to whether Angela Merkel, chancellor of the EU’s largest economy, did not become too lenient on Putin. But the obvious question stands: What was the rest of the union doing all along as the Russian leader consolidated his position?

The manner in which Russians and people of Russian descent became suspects in some of Moscow’s arch rivals in the wake of the Ukraine showed the many shades and manifestations of persecution. Those who did not denounce Putin were harassed, fired from their jobs and had their property placed in deep freeze. One does not have to be a Russian supporter to question such means and methods of hounding anyone linked with the Russian leader. During World War II, some 110,000 Japanese American relocation centres spread over 10 states, even as their children were drafted in the US army. They were treated in such manner simply because of their ethnic background and Japan had bombarded Pearl Harbor.

After World War II, thousands of Chinese seamen, who had settled in Liverpool, were secretly deported as if they were engaged in criminal activities. More than 20,000 Chinese men had helped the British forces in a variety of ways during the war period. Many of them had married British women. After the hurried enforced deportations, the seamen’s families never came to know about their whereabouts thinking perhaps that they had abandoned them. Not much was said about those incidents. The governments that resorted to such acts escaped the type of probe and condemnations reserved for others involved in similar activity. 

On another issue, when The Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, confronted former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, for a BBC Radio programme this spring, about his support for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the three-time Labour prime minister vainly tried to wriggle out of the issue he described as “complicated”. Admitting that many people disliked him for the decisions, he said in defence: “I had to do what I thought was the right thing”. 

Queen Elizabeth II, of the United Kingdom, had many people taken aback in March, when she allowed herself to be escorted by her younger son Prince Andrew during a programme held in connection with her late consort Prince Philip. Andrew has had a severe brush with the law, putting a tremendous strain on not only the royal family but the public as well. So great was public disappointment with him that he was stripped of “His Royal Highness” title but retained the “prince” address.

Queen Elizabeth preferred to risk public disapproval and throw a favourable gesture to Andrew. In fact, this came shortly after comments in the press that the disgraced prince could one day be back in public circulation if he conducted himself well without creating any fuss or the type of escapades he was involved earlier. Leaders, seen as cyphers, are treated with deep disdain if they depend entirely on the coattails of a bigger leader who, in exchange of their blind support, are allowed modest mercies and sense of some security. They turn bullies, when reassured that they have a powerful ally on their side should another power harbour any ill desire.

Shorn of principles, chameleon-like individuals switch sides and stances when faced with difficult situations. Consistency, credibility and integrity are compromised without batting an eyelid. For them, the immediate outcome is more important than anything else.

(Professor Kharel specialises in political communication.)