When Foreign Secretary David Miliband had visited India, little did he know his views on the Mumbai attacks would cause a media furore. His
comments on the issue of Kashmir sparked a scathing attack on the foreign secretary from the Indian media as well as the India’s foreign ministry reacting strongly, saying India did not need unsolicited advice on internal issues.
In his article in the Guardian, Miliband said resolving the Kashmir dispute would help deny extremists in the region one of their main calls to arms and allow Pakistani authorities to focus more effectively on tackling the threat on their western borders.
The Pioneer accused Miliband of “domestic grandstanding and ideological posturing that only left his Indian hosts convinced of Whitehall’s marginal status in international politics”. A number of Indian newspapers at the weekend quoted officials as criticising Miliband’s “aggressive” attitude in meetings.
Having gained independence from Britain for nearly 64 years, it is quite arrogant of Britain to maintain a colonial mindset and interfere and direct India’s foreign policy. But it is not surprising, as many of the developing countries (former colonies of Britain) and indeed the Muslim World look up to Britain and its system. However since India has become the new powerhouse for the economy in the World, it feels competent enough to direct its own progress and enlightenment.
The reason for the outburst by the Indian Foreign Ministry is understandable, as you would never hear a Minster from Britain address or instruct solutions to the Senate at United States Capitol for its domestic problems or The Palais du Luxembourg where the French Senate meets. It is most condescending when one country’s leader tells another country’s leader how to run things in his own country.
Yet, when it comes to the Muslim World, its open season in advising – if not dictating – the foreign policy of a country. The most recent example is Egypt and its impotency in dealing with Israeli aggression against the Palestinians. There are countless examples where Ministers from the West go and visit the Muslim World and all that they are told is what and when do to things.
This state of affairs shall remain until a change is adopted. A change of sincere leadership, an independent system modeled on Islam as oppose to the Western form of governance and a political vision that will make the Muslim World a global leader in its affairs.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Thanks Andy K Panda.
Are you really saying that things haven’t changed since colonialist times for the UK? So are you saying British foreign policy is still based around a “colonialist mindset”? Proof of intent?
I think I’ve only seen Britain and America labeled as ‘colonialists’ on Islamic websites. Why is that?
Or do you think that the mindset is unintentional and Miliband didn’t even realise he was doing it?
A.M. (UK)
January 25th, 2009 at 12:54 AM
Thank you for your queries/comments.
Realities have obviously changed since the British Empire collapsed and the Dawn of American Military Might. Britain can no longer dominate global politics because of American hegemony and super power status. However, it still manages to try to influence policies abroad based on national interests.
There are number of diplomatic events of British Foreign policy for the last 50 years that can be studied.
Based on the definition of neo-colonialism (Control that is economic and cultural, rather than political) , these events clearly exhibit this trend and would be foolish to term it anything else. In some places there is actual proper colonialism with the advent of the new military concept “preemptive strike”. Actual countries have been invaded and occupied with military presence by America and Britain.
The reason you might have seen Britain and America labeled as “colonialists” on Islamic websites is because history shows the majority of countries targeted were those that had a Muslim population or Islamic heritage. Political events such as the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire and occupying its lands, the establishment of Israel in the heart of the Muslim lands, the political, economic and social restructuring of Turkey via Mustapha Kemal, the economic and military aid to Israel, the propping up and supporting the Arab dictators, having military bases around the Middle East, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Philippines and countless others in Muslim lands give the blatant proof of why we term Britain and America as colonialists.
I hope that addresses some of the queries you asked.
A.K.P