Nepal Maoists: Mumbai attack signals intervention
Posted by Mike E on December 7, 2008
Mumbai from the air
There is a great deal tucked into this analysis from the Nepali Maoist newspaper Red Star. In particular it puts forward an analysis of the strategic importance of South Asia and U.S. imperialist goals there (in countering the rise of Chinese geo-strategic influence). And they also anticipate a rise in interimperialist (and U.S./Russian) rivalry intruding into the region. All of these contradictions interplay with chances of revolution in Nepal (and India).
On 26th Nov. Mumbai, the financial capital city of India came under a very fierce attack. Dozens of attackers entered the city by boats and attacked about a dozen places, including hotels, hospitals, restaurants, train stations etc. The attackers took over the Taj Mahal Hotel, regarded as a symbol of Mumbai’s financial success. It took 60 hours for Indian security personnel to regain control.
195 people were killed and hundreds injured. The attackers gunned down the chief of anti-terrorist squad. The Indian capital Delhi, Indian IT hub Bangalore, Ahmedabad and Jaipur have all seen explosions and killings recently.
The attackers acted in a coordinated and planned manner. The attack has shown the serious negligence and incompetence of the Indian security sector. The attack has seriously damaged India’s security image. There are also some who believe that the attack was an ‘inside job’, carried out with the involvement of far right Hindu groups, however the Indian government are blaming the usual suspect, Pakistan.
As the raging fires and fierce gun battles ends in Mumbai, loud voices can be heard from the Indian political circle straining the India-Pakistan diplomatic relationship. The Union home minister, the national security advisor and the Chief Minister of Maharashtra have resigned from their respective posts. India blames Pakistan for the attack. India summoned the Chief Pakistani diplomat and criticized them for not stopping the terrorist outfits. India believes that the attackers came from Karachi in a boat.
Pakistan has denied any kind of involvement in the attack and has said that it is ready to assist India in any way to investigate the incident.
After the Mumbai attack and tension escalating between India and Pakistan, the South Asia region is again becoming a hotspot in world politics. It is said that the Indian rulers are having some intensive discussions on whether to cut all the diplomatic relations with Pakistan or not. The US secretary of the state Condoleezza Rice has come to India, and she is likely to widen the rift between India and Pakistan.
On the first week of November, the Democratic party candidate Barack Obama won the presidential election. Obama had been saying that he will concentrate on Afghanistan rather than in Iraq. He also has clearly spoken that US may attack the ‘Al-Qaeda and Taliban’ who are hiding in Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistani government. US bombers have been bombing inside Pakistani territory for the last few months. A few months ago, the US and India signed a Nuclear treaty. As soon as Obama enters office, the US will focus on South Asia as part of its plan to check the growth of Chinese power.
China has been developing super economic power with two digit economic growth. At the same time US is having its most severe economic crisis since the 1930s. China has good relations with Pakistan and is helping Pakistan in many aspects. Slowly the US-India and China-Pakistan alliance is becoming more visible.
Furthermore, the tension between US and Russia is escalating. The US had planted anti-missile defence system in the Eastern Europe. Likewise, Russia had a joint naval exercise with Venezuela in the Caribbean. The concentration of the US in Afghanistan and Pakistan will bring Russia’s interest in the region.
The US presence in South Asia means a worsening India-Pakistan relation. The US plays one against the other for its interest, just as the British did in the past. The US presence also has a long term plan to encircle China. The US is creating a heavy presence in Nepal for a few years, in keeping with its long term plan. Even US analysts have predicted that China will overtake the US by 2020. China and Russia will obviously feel a security threat with the US presence in South Asia. Rice’s hasty visit to India shows that US want to ‘fish in the troubled water’ after the Mumbai attack. Will South Asia be playground of super powers in the near future? Can the leaders of South Asia do nothing more than act as good servants of the Western powers? The question is getting louder and louder.
BobH said
This article in the Asia Times by a former Indian diplomat has a deeper analysis of the region’s politics. Since it’s before the Mumbai attack it does not address Pakistan that much, but the interplay between U.S. domestic politics and U.S./Russian maneuvers is highlighted.
Carl Davidson said
This raises the right questions at the end.
But I seriously doubt whether the US getting out of the region would restore amicable relations between India and Pakistan. If I were a gambler on such things, I’d place my wagers the other way.
Keith said
Startfor had an interesting analysis on this too:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081201_strategic_motivations_mumbai_attack
Stratfor focuses much more on Afghanistan, they reckon that the attack in Mumbai was a part of the war in Afghanistan. If the attacks successfully open a rift between India and Pakistan then the U.S. will be very isolated in Afghanistan as the Pakistan’s army will be pulled off the Afghan border to defend against India.
That would mean that Rice is visiting India not to exasperate the tensions between India and Pakistan but to calm things down. Pakistan is still within the U.S. sphere of influence. China has no reason to directly challenge the U.S. China has always supported U.S. actions in Afghanistan, and they have been the main beneficiaries (along with Iran) of the war on terror. China has no reason to challenge the U.S. quite the opposite the U.S. is crumbling. China can just stand back and watch.
Mark said
Actually Keith is wrong. The US has a strength to adapt to change which is the difference between us and previous empires that have fallen. We recognized the world dissatisfaction with our government’s foreign policies and we are putting pressure on our elected leaders to change this.
I do agree with Keith that the US effectively pays hundred of billions money annually to promote world stability and that China, Iran and certainly not Russia would ever do such a thing with their power. We push a pretty similar agenda as Europe and developing world countries.
The American people donate the most $ to charities and causes in the world. Other world citizens choose not to share their wealth.
And if you look past the stereotypes and try, really try, to meet the American people you will probably stop hating so much. My wife and I have good friends in many countries in this world.
-I write this as 31 year old male that has traveled to Central America, South America, Iceland, Europe, the Middle East and Asia that is getting tired of unjust, negative statements applied to my countrymen and women.
Red26 said
I must have heard at least a hundred times. ,