http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10 <http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id =74916> &categ_id=5&article_id=74916 Where was Asia in the Lebanese-Israeli conflict?
By N. Janardhan Commentary by Tuesday, August 22, 2006 Asia was conspicuously absent in efforts to recently end the conflict between Hizbullah and Israel in Lebanon. The lack of an Asian response assumed significance because of two main factors. First, nearly one-third of Asia's population is Muslim, translating into about 70 percent of the world's Muslims. That a continent, a genuine powerhouse of Islam, adopted a passive approach only invited more trouble domestically. It would have been better for Asian states to help formulate solutions, even failed ones, to the conflict internationally. Second, the silence and ineffectiveness of Asia showed that Asia has been unable to convert its economic and military gains into diplomatic capital. Asia is home to three declared and three undeclared or suspected nuclear powers, and is riding on the wave of unprecedented booming economies in China, Japan, India and South Korea, among others. It was revealing that China - the only Asian country to send an envoy to five Middle Eastern countries to drum up support for peace during the crisis - considered United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701 "unbalanced," but voted for it anyway, because it "noticed that Arab countries, including Lebanon, did not oppose the resolution." In the most significant response, some Asian countries were only able to voice their frustration at an emergency summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference convened in the fourth week of the conflict. While demanding that the UN implement a cease-fire and investigate Israel's "flagrant human rights violations," leaders from Indonesia, Pakistan, and Malaysia voiced support for the Lebanese people "in their legitimate and courageous resistance against the Israeli aggression." Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, could only highlight that the "war must stop, or it will radicalize the Muslim world, even those of us who are moderate today ... from where, it will be just one step away to that ultimate nightmare: a clash of civilizations." Less consequentially, several hard-line Islamic groups said they were signing up fighters and suicide bombers to travel to the Middle East to wage jihad against Israel, with at least two claiming they had dispatched dozens of men. The Malaysian foreign minister even said that Muslim countries should consider the call to supply arms to Hizbullah. More constructively, Turkey, Malaysia, and Indonesia said they were ready to send soldiers to Lebanon to join an international peacekeeping force. India's fence-sitting and inconsistent diplomacy, perhaps conditioned by its roots in the Non-Aligned Movement, was also evident during the crisis. Its first official response was critical of Israel's "excessive and disproportionate military retaliation" and New Delhi condemned the "abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Lebanese militants," calling for their release. Later, Parliament passed a unanimous resolution expressing concern over the violence and condemning Israel. Among the domestic factors conditioning India's contradictory response was the fact that India is home to one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. Furthermore, the government survives thanks to the support of leftist parties, which have sought international sanctions against Israel. Yet, externally, New Delhi has given teeth to a new alliance with Tel Aviv and Washington during the last decade. As a result, India has had a three-dimensional relationship with the main parties in the Middle East, creating a gray patch in its foreign policy: Israel is India's second biggest arms supplier; India is keen to see through a deal with the US involving the transfer of civilian nuclear technology, which the Indians consider crucial for their economic growth; and India has been a longtime political and economic partner of countries in the Middle East, including Iran. It is also very likely that India, the largest contributor to UN peacekeeping operations, will continue to be a part of the new international force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, where it is already present. The reason for such passive Asian involvement to the Lebanon conflict was that while most Asian countries share warm or close ties with Middle Eastern countries, many of them are also either locked in with the United States or Israel, and, in some cases both, for varying reasons. This has enraged their populations and often forced governments to compromise and restricted their diplomatic maneuverability. China is dependent on several Middle Eastern countries for its oil. But even before formal diplomatic relations were established in 1992 and despite consistent criticism of Israeli policies toward Palestinians, China benefited immensely from Israel in its process of military modernization, and continues to do so. China also supplies Iran with arms. And it is only in the standoff over Iran's nuclear program with the international community that China has been playing a proactive role in the region. While Pakistan has great potential to play a hands-on role in the Middle East, there are obstacles. It is fighting to crush the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in its own territory and along the Afghan border in cooperation with the US, but it is also considering improving relations with Israel. Both steps are domestically unpopular. Indonesia and the Philippines are also cooperating with the US in fighting terrorism at home. Looking ahead, Asia has to wake up from its slumber. It will not become a significant player in the Middle East based solely on its economic strength. It must learn to diplomatically leverage this power, and perhaps show signs of engaging its growing military might in the region. Asia should also ensure that the Middle East peace process resurfaces as an important part of its countries' domestic agendas - not only to contribute to peace in the region, but also to guarantee greater stability at home. N. Janardhan is the program manager of Gulf-Asia relations and the editor of Gulf in the Media at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with the center. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
