Path of Love

Though love may clip your wings it will not tether your soul.
Perhaps a little more time need be spent on this earth,
for two birds fly side by side but not together into the sun.

Some earthly pleasures transform desire into love.

To fear love is to walk this earth not knowing our potential to fly.

Though earths garden be beautiful one day we shall meet, in the eyes of a stranger,
a calling to unshackle our spirit and tear off the strips that bind our heart.

Though the path of love be a journey into unfathomable heights,
fear not for many have been swept up in the great winds that cease not.

Glimpse after Glimpse

Though sometimes I wonder
which way is up and down
and which way is back and forth,
not for a single moment
have I not made efforts
to bring awareness to my side:
to shed its light on things.

And I even
manage when possible
to sit still for a time,
without my usual distractions.

Many times I wonder
about the great things
the sages speak of.

And all I can do
is bring awareness
to this thought.

Yet sometimes -
perhaps a late afternoon,
with the sun already
settled beyond the hills -
I pause on my usual late walk
and close my eyes,
only to find that
I am not there.

Only a vast and
pristinely silent mirror Is.

As I stop
everything stops.
Vast eternal stillness,
alluring and alive;
a dustless mirror
reflecting everything -
everything except me.

I am nowhere to be found.
Swept away in the endless tide;
the extinguished flame
reveals eternal light.

Sometime later I am back.
What rekindles the little flame
that extinguishes the eternal sun?

The Colonial Kingdom

It is no coincidence that the
rivers flow of anti-depressants.
It is the hidden side
of the coin of truth.

One side is collective expansion
and was stamped in the colonial era.
The other side is collective contraction
and is called karma.

Be careful of your actions.
In science they say every action
has an equal and opposite reaction.

The Master Laughs

Too stubborn am I to follow
the light of the master.
Yet every cave I enter
has a new jewel.

Like an unravelling maze,
each cave never fails to bring me
to the fresh light of a new day.

A Russian Bias?

In relation to Kosovo, it took the West almost a decade of diplomacy and negotiation to bring about the change from autonomy too widespread acknowledgement of independence. The intervention by NATO in 1999 to prevent further ethnic cleansing in Kosovo by Serbian forces, the likes of which occurred in Bosnia, has been historically vindicated. However the Russian claim of genocide and several thousand South Ossetians deaths failed under post-violence scrutiny. The death toll is put between one to several hundred. Though this be tragic in itself it is important to put this in the context of a build-up in tensions and ongoing military conflict between South Ossetian militia and the Georgian military. The culmination of this fighting led to Georgia’s failed attempt to take the South Ossetian capital by force.

It took Russia not more than a few weeks to declare South Ossetia’s independence. The grounds were given that the invasion by Georgia annulled its legal claim over the region. The Russian President Medvedev argued that this precedence did not occur in relation to Serbia and Kosovo. However it is clearly evident that ethnic cleansing and genocide can be attributed to Kosovo and the Balkans in general. The same cannot be said to be so in the South Ossetian situation.

The argument seems to have some authority that if an ethnically homogonous region within a sovereign state is targeted in a way that constitutes genocide, ethnic cleansing, or crimes against humanity, than that state forgoes its sovereign claim over that region. It is an argument that follows from the United Nations platform of “responsibility to protect”. The argument here is that humanity as a whole as the right, and perhaps the obligation, to intervene in the case of atrocities. The invasion of Tibet happened and went unanswered by major powers. The genocide in Rwanda happened, but was more closely watched. The atrocities committed by the Serbs in Bosnia finally motivated some major powers to intervene in the case of Serbian atrocities in Kosovo.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, it might be argued that the mutual crimes committed by the warring South Ossetians and Georgians is sufficient grounds to make the case for eventual independence – as is the case made by some major powers in relation to Kosovo. However Georgia did use major military force to try and bring South Ossetia back into its fold. This further gives grounds to South Ossetian independence, and does justify a military response – in this case from Russia. However especially considering the falsified claims of genocide and ethnic cleansing, Russia’s eventual response has the very clear character of being excessive. The destabilising effect on Georgia was to leave a power vacuum that enabled South Ossetian militia to commit atrocities.

It is within the collective of humanity to transcend all borders; however it is within the abuse of individual power to consume all borders. In order to transcend boundaries humanity must first learn to respect them.

A Western Bias?

That Georgia launched a major military offensive against its own autonomous region is the key issue that did not receive significant attention in Western political and media circles in the initial days of confrontation with Russia. One might assume that Georgia, being a key Western ally, would not be criticized too openly by its friends.

On the eve of the Georgian assault, the United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stood beside the Georgian president Mikhael Saakashvili, and emphasised that diplomacy and not military means was the key to this problems resolution. That night Georgia attacked its own autonomous region of South Ossetia. It is clear from the United States diplomatic response in the coming days – inspite of the Georgian president’s efforts to encourage NATO and the United States to intervene militarily – that Dr Rice was true to her word on the eve of the assault.

In making the attempt to retake control of the autonomous region of South Ossetia, did Mikhael Saakashvili think he would succeed. One key question obviously would be first of all would Russia respond militarily. It would be difficult to find any sane person who is informed of the historical situation to conclude that Russia would not respond in force militarily. Hence, the next question is would the Georgian military defeat the Russian military. On this question I think even most insane and uninformed people would consider this to be an absurd question to even ask. So, quite obviously Russia would intervene and defeat the Georgian military. Hence the question is why would Saakashvili even bother?

Saakashvili attempted to justify his actions by saying that Russia was going to try and take over Georgia anyway, so it was better to lose fighting rather than just lose. This is a very courageous motive. However to carry out a pre-emptive attack on South Ossetia because Russia was any how going to invade Georgia proper is not backed up by any clear evidence.

The Russian response was likened to the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union. However this comparison was incorrect because Czechoslovakia did not launch an initial military assault.

It is clear from the first days of conflict what Saakashvili’s real position was. It was to achieve his goal of retaking control of the break-away regions by encouraging NATO and the United States to confront Russia militarily. However no analyst or political player outside of Georgia considered this even a remote possibility. The Georgian president’s judgement in launching the assault is seriously called into question.

The Georgian’s approach was to play the victim and show Russia as displaying excess use of force. The United States, the European Union, and NATO backed this position diplomatically. Admittedly it filtered out slowly through Western media outlets that an important point was that Georgia started it. However the key point of concern in all of this is that the position of Russia being excessively aggressive was adopted before Russia moved outside of the conflict zone in South Ossetia. This point was almost missed and was eventually pointed out by Mikhael Gorbachev in an International Herald Tribune opinion piece (20 August 2008).

It became clear when the conflict spread to Abkhazia, and Russian troops moved significantly outside the conflict zone, that accusations of aggression may have merit. However Russia was already being accused of aggression prior to this. The grounds for aggression were not evidenced in Russia’s initial response. So the question is why the premature accusations of aggression? Perhaps the West predicted that Russia would take the opportunity to expand its interests and so the West was adopting an early position to reflect this. Even if this is the case this was not stated, and I do not see any reason not to disclose this. In other words a reasonable Western position at the outset would be that Russia stopped Georgia from violently retaking a breakaway region, and please don’t punish Georgia too much for their stupidity. Hence it looks like the West was biased in its initial calling of the situation. If this is the case it would help the West in dealing with Russia, to look at this bias.

Broadening the picture, in the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia’s independence by the Russian parliament and government, it is worth considering the parallels with Kosovo’s recent independence from Serbia. Russia considers it to be a similar situation. However President Medvedev makes the point that the only key difference, and hence why Russia did not support Kosovo’s independence bid, is that Serbia did not try and crush Kosovo with military force. It would be interesting to know what the West’s position is on this comparison.

Also, in making a premature call on Russian aggression, it would be interesting to compare Russia’s initial response with Israel’s 2006 war against Lebanon. Lebanon abducted two soldiers, and Israel demolished one country. The United States used their veto on an otherwise uniform view at the United Nations Security Council that Israel’s response was disproportionate and excessive.

This article is not aimed at taking sides. It is aimed at the truth. The author is of the opinion that there are some biases taken by key Western players on some major international issues, and that by acknowledging and exploring these, a better understand can lead to a better and more harmonious global outcome.

Beware of the Wave

When suicide bombers were rampant in Iraq people initially were giving thanks that Afghanistan was not similarly afflicted. Then questions started getting raised about why this was the case. In the time that intellectuals on one side of the divide noted and queried the situation, suicide bombers gathered conviction and explosives.

Pakistan became the next significant victim to become deeply ensnarled in a gripping wave of bombings. Opposition to the government realignment with the United States was the impetus. The Red Mosque siege was the tipping point. A newly elected government pledging sovereignty and vowing internal diplomacy provided an interesting experiment. With the US influence waning and intra-national elements negotiating, would the US be proven to be interfering and divisive?

Over the last year the north-west of Pakistan has produced increasing waves of violence. The violence spread west into neighbouring Afghanistan, and east into areas like suburban Peshawar. This gradual encroachment deeper into Pakistan has prompted the newly elected and independent Pakistan government to in recent weeks adopt the former military use-of-force strategy. The Pakistan government’s first major military push against the Taliban demonstrated a considerable underestimation of the Taliban’s growing military might. As well as being overpowered military, the government also not surprisingly was at the receiving end of the threat of a wave of suicide bombings.

As suicide bombings, and bombings in general, have spread from Iraq to Afghanistan, north-west Pakistan, and Pakistan in general, it is notable to consider Pakistan’s easterly neighbour. India has in recent years seen a wave of bombings targeting numerous major cities.

It is fortunate that the violence in Iraq, which it should be noted is most significantly civil in nature, has been considerably reduced. The same cannot be said for Afghanistan. Also, the vastly improved situation in Iraq is considered by many as extremely fragile. The recent Pakistan experiment in diplomacy appears to be short-lived. However the confrontational alternative has known consequences: the spread of violence throughout the country.

If the Pakistan government again makes any serious military effort against the Taliban, the country may be engulfed in violence. The government’s recent moves to confront both the Taliban and the president make for challenging times.

As for India and the globe, I would simply say beware of the wave.