Vested Interest in Modi-Trump ‘Friendship’

MUSINGS

Wondering aloud: Is the Modi-Trump ‘friendship’ carrying a whole range of vested interests? Much in tune with the expansionist policies of  America, the  selling and buying of  weapons, the role of the arms lobbies, export of warfare  technologies from American and  Israeli companies to be used on us ...perhaps, also, the ‘use’ of foreign  troops, in the  garb or  ploy  or  camouflage of  mediation or arbitration  or use  any other viable term of your  choice!

It would be naďve to expect that this ‘friendship’ is based on a nothingness to it! No, sir, it doesn’t seem to be sheer selfless, nor   based on the  old  fashioned conventional terms  of  diplomacy. Itsmuch to do with extractions, subtractionand intrusions.

In today’s changing world scenario all that seems to hold sway is military  might and its destroying  prowess. The lone superpower using all possible ploys to extend its territorial  intrusions,  on the  pretext of  friendships! Here I am more than tempted to quote Noam Chomsky from an earlier interview he gave me in 2001, when he was visiting New Delhi. Today his words hold out as never before in this dark scenario, when we seem to be led towards disasters.

When I had asked Noam Chomsky to comment on the  state unleashed terrorism  this is what he had to say, in terms of the  US  state unleashing terrorism:

“In the Reagan years alone, US sponsored state terrorists in Central America left hundreds of thousands of tortured and mutilated corpses, millions of maimed and orphaned and four countries in ruins. In the same years Western backed South African depredations killed 1.5 million people. I need not speak of West Asia or much else. All of this, however, is barred from the annals of terrorism by a simple device: the term terrorism, like most terms of political discourse has two meanings, a literal one and a propagandistic one. The literal one can be found in the official US documents, which instruct us that ‘terrorism is the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological  in nature (carried out) through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear’. But the literal definition cannot be used, for one reason, because it is a close paraphrase of official government policy called ‘low intensity war ‘or counter- terrorism’. Another reason is that the definition quickly yields conclusions that are wholly unacceptable. Accordingly, the propagandistic version is preferred: terrorism is terrorism that is directed against the US and its friends and allies. Reviews of the literature reveal, not surprisingly,that this usage is close to universal and of course not restricted to the US. It would, I suspect, be difficult to find a historical exception, even among the extreme mass murderers. The Nazis, for example, bitterly condemned terrorism and conducted what they called ‘counter-terrorism’ against terrorist partisans. The US basically agreed. It organised and conducted similar ‘counter-terrorism’ in the post-war years. And it drew from the Nazi model which was treated with respect: Wehrmacht officers were consulted and their manuals used in designing post war counter- insurgency programmes worldwide, typically called counter-terrorism.”

  Chomsky  would well foresee  the  dangers  involved in the  expansionist  policies .To quote him on  this: “The threat of terrorism is not the only abyss into which we peer... an even greater threat is posed by expansion of the arms race into space... the term race is inappropriate, because the US, is, for now, competing alone. Its goal is to achieve ‘full spectrum dominance’. These plans have been available in government documents for some years and the projects outlined have been under development... it is conventional everywhere for attack to be called ‘defence’ and this case is no exception: the plans for militarization of space are disguised as ‘ballistic missile defence’ (BMD). And it is well understood that BMD, even if technically feasible must rely on satellite communication and destroying satellites is far easier than shooting down missiles and that is one reason why the US must seek ‘full spectrum dominance’, such overwhelming control of space that even the poor man’s weapons will not be available to an adversary... the goals of militarization of space extend far beyond. The US Space Command is very explicit about it. Its Clinton era publications announce the primary goal prominently— ‘dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and inves-tment’. Armies were needed ‘during the west-ward expansion of the continental United States’ Ofcourse, in self-defence, against the indigenous population!”

How I wish  that  whilst  President  Trump  was busy harping on  threats posed by ‘Islamic terrorism’, he had  also  brought  along  some little  mention of the  State unleashed terrorism and how it is  instrumental in the  killings of hundreds and thousands and also the reactionary violence it drags along. Several lands and entire civilisations stand wrecked because of the American Government’s military intrusions and bombardments on these countries. Military might unleashed on  human beings!

Also, how I wish   Prime Minister Modi had brought along details to the Hindutva terror groups more than flourishing in our country. Lynching and killings as never before. Targeted attacks on the  minority population and groups.

Home grown terror groups’ attacks have been peaking in the country yet there is  little  hue and cry. How can there be,when you have a terror accused sitting right inside the Parliament!  How can there be, when several  Right-wing  rulers have openly  extended their  support to the goon brigades hell bent on fracturing human forms, under  the  cover  of  the stale alibis and pretexts in circulation,  well monitored and  more than well executed by a certain set Agenda.

How I wish anyone of the so-called world leaders, had focused on the plight of the Valley Kashmiris. How could they, for to talk of all that brutality isn’t part of that big Agenda!

The stark reality is that today there are no leaders around. Leader-less we are. And in that leader-less condition, we are getting ruined on any given front.