The Art of Making Peace
Will “security guarantees” from Trump and from European powers be solid enough for Zelensky to accept a peace deal with Putin, a deal which Trump would like to announce in the “trilateral” he has spoken of? Will there be a Trump-Putin-Zelensky get-together soon? Or a Putin-Zelensky meeting? Tuesday (August 19) did not bring clear answers.
According to the Washington Post, Trump had told European leaders even before his meeting in Alaska with Putin that the U.S. “would play some kind of role” in assuring security to Ukraine against any future Russian attack after the contemplated truce. The Post’s story adds that Trump and Putin agreed at the Alaska summit that such a deal was feasible. The story also claims, citing an August 17 remark by Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, that the U.S. could offer “Article 5-like protection,” something “akin to NATO’s mutual defense pact.”
NATO’s Article 5 states that “an armed attack against one member is considered an attack against all members.” After insisting thus far that it could never accept Ukraine becoming a NATO member, will Russia now agree to “Article 5-like” protection by the U.S. and European countries in their national capacities, rather than as a collective? The apparent answer is “Yes, provided parties to the deal agree to Russia keeping most of the land it has annexed from Ukraine, especially Crimea and the Donbas.”
Will Trump, on his part, agree to offer “Article 5-like” protection after years of railing against America’s involvement in “foreign wars”? The apparent answer is “Yes, provided Europe and Ukraine pay for the advanced weapons the U.S. would supply, and provided U.S. troops are not involved.” An August 19 BBC report says that Trump has repeated his opposition to sending U.S. troops to Ukraine but hinted at other ways of supporting Ukraine’s security.
The provisos spelled out above will be disliked for different reasons and with varying degrees of intensity, but it may be speculated that most people in the world, including the people of Ukraine, would be glad if the bloodletting and destruction stops. The Post writes in an editorial comment, “This wouldn’t be a just peace. It would simply reflect battlefield realities.” While a few would desire uncompromising, limitless resistance, the rest would think, “This isn’t satisfactory, but alternatives are worse.”
MELANIA TRUMP’S LETTER
Shameless hypocrisy is part of our world’s reality. Moreover, whether conducted in a village or at the summit, politics seems to require play-acting. Nonetheless, many will ascribe sincerity to the words written by U.S. First Lady Melania Trump in her "peace" letter to Vladimir Putin. Speaking of the plight of children in the Ukraine war, she urged the Russian president to "protect their innocence". Her husband hand-delivered the letter to Putin at their Alaska meeting. Two days later, Trump claimed that his wife’s message “was very well received by Putin.”
Born in Slovenia, Melania Trump is presumably a Slav, as millions in eastern Europe are, including Putin. Highlighting the conflict’s impact on children, she said in her letter that every child "dreams of love, possibility, and safety from danger". Added Ms. Trump:
"Every child shares the same quiet dreams in their heart, whether born randomly into a nation's rustic countryside or a magnificent city-center. They dream of love, possibility, and safety from danger.”
"Each generation's descendants begin their lives with a purity -- an innocence which stands above geography, government, and ideology. Yet in today's world, some children are forced to carry a quiet laughter, untouched by the darkness around them, a silent defiance against the forces that can potentially claim their future. Mr. Putin, you can singlehandedly restore their melodic laughter."
"In protecting the innocence of these children, you will do more than serve Russia alone. You serve humanity itself. Such a bold idea transcends all human division, and you, Mr. Putin, are fit to implement this vision with a stroke of the pen today.”
TARGETED FOR EXPULSION
I reproduce these by now widely disseminated lines for two reasons. One, people everywhere will recognize the picture of courageous children surrounded by darkness that Melania Trump has drawn. Secondly, I would like Ms. Trump (in the unlikely event of this column reaching her), and everyone else stirred by Ukrainian (and Russian) casualties, to consider whether, going “above geography,” the world’s attention shouldn’t also be drawn to the children of Gaza and other parts of Palestine who are surrounded by hostility and targeted for expulsion.
On August 18, BBC News showed live pictures of what it described as “an attack by dozens of Israeli settlers on Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank,” and said:
“The settlers in the illegal outpost of Or Nahman attacked local Palestinian farmers, setting fire to vehicles and destroying their property. The violence comes as the Israeli government plans to sign off the building of thousands of new homes elsewhere in the territory. That plan, which is illegal under international law, would ‘bury the idea of a Palestinian state,’ according to one far-right minister in the Israeli government.
“Israeli settlers have been expanding their illegal seizures of Palestinian land since the start of the war in Gaza. A BBC team was in the West Bank near the illegal outpost settlement of Or Nahman when Palestinian communities came under attack.”
REGRETTABLE TREND
From India, meanwhile, troubling as well as heartening reports emanate. Heading the list of the former kind was Narendra Modi’s independence day speech of August 15. As has been the case every year, the prime minister’s speech was again delivered from the ramparts of Delhi’s Red Fort, a grand structure built in the 17th century by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan, who also built the Taj Mahal of Agra.
In his speech, Modi intensified a regrettable trend: the vilification of India’s Muslims who, it must be pointed out, regard the Fort from where Modi launched his latest attack as a proud symbol, installed by a Muslim king, of their equal claim to India’s heritage. Fortunately, a great many Hindus, too, view the monument as an emblem of India’s pluralism, which was a central credo of those who won independence in 1947.
In a talk of over two hours, less riveting it seems than usual, Modi painted what has to be called an invented scenario, designed to rouse anti-Muslim sentiments among India’s Hindu majority and advance the project of building a Hindu state. Amplifying planted stories of Bangladeshis and Rohingyas entering India illegally and in large numbers, the prime minister warned of a threat to the Hindu position. This in a nation where 80 percent are Hindus and 15 percent Muslims, where Muslim MPs are less than 5 percent in parliament, and where the average income of Muslims is significantly lower than the average Indian income.
On its 78th anniversary, this is what India was told by Modi:
“Under a deliberate conspiracy, the country’s demography is being changed … infiltrators are stealing the livelihoods of our youth … targeting our daughters and sisters … deceiving innocent Adivasis and seizing their land … this will not be tolerated … when demographic shifts occur near our borders, they become a threat to national security, sow social discord … no country can hand itself over to infiltrators … that is why I announce from the Red Fort: we have decided to launch a high-power demography mission … this mission will address the grave crisis.”
There is discussion in India on whether Modi’s latest anti-Muslim rhetoric, hurled from a ceremonial platform, may be connected to a supposed wish in the leadership of the RSS, the broad “family” of Hindu nationalism to which Modi and the BJP belong, to apply its rule of “retirement at 75” to Modi, who will reach that age in a few weeks -- on September 17. Such speculation does not excite my interest. The drive against human rights, including minority rights, is what troubles me, not who remains in high office.
HEIGHTENED RESOLVE
Likewise, what refreshes my spirits is a spirited battle to protect human rights. I wish to record here my impression that such a battle is currently being waged with heightened resolve by a number of brave Indians, amongst whom 55-year-old Rahul Gandhi (no kin of mine despite the common surname) is surely one of the most persistent and the most determined. An MP from a constituency in India’s most populous state, Uttar Pradesh, Rahul is at this time campaigning in the state of Bihar – also possessing a large population -- against “vote theft,” which he and his Congress Party allege has taken place on a substantial scale. Indirectly, Rahul Gandhi and 35-year-old Tejashwi Yadav, who leads the Congress-allied RJD Party in Bihar, are also campaigning for elections in Bihar that may be held in November.
If YouTube videos are any indication, Rahul and Tejashwi are drawing enormous support. What will be the BJP’s counter to their drive? One can detect a disquieting wish to deprive Rahul, Tejashwi, and other opposition leaders of opportunities to continue their campaign.
INDIA, U.S., CHINA, & PAKISTAN
India’s external alignments have also come under questioning. U.S.-India ties have been weakened by Trump’s continuing insistence that the recent India-Pakistan conflict was ended by him; by the stiff tariffs he has levied or threatened against India; and by Trump’s alleged warmth for the head of Pakistan’s military and for Pakistan’s supposed reserves of cryptocurrency and rare earths. On the other hand, China and India, hitherto seen as inevitable rivals if not foes, are now talking. Modi is to travel soon to China to meet with Xi.
However, India-U.S. ties transcend any president-premier relationship. Millions of Indians who live in the U.S. are the foundation for these ties. A shared if at times fragile belief in liberty and equality gives the relationship a deeper quality. The ties may deteriorate but cannot crumble. In fact, they are likely to recover.
Equally, any real improvement in India-China ties will take much more than annoyance with Trump. Nor will China terminate its long-cultivated partnership with Pakistan merely because New Delhi expresses interest in nicer links with Beijing.
