Are we staring at WW- III

 While there may be different forms of wars, the focus is on a likely WW III. In this piece which is largely for a lay reader I try to analyse whether World War III may become a reality in the near future.

It needs to be understood that in a WW, there may be three sides. Two would be in conflict, a third one may be neutral. It invariably begins with two countries and others pitch in later or are dragged into it. But the first question first. Why do countries go to war? Here are several reasons. Annexation of territory, revenge of some sort, gain of wealth or even as a pre-emptive measure when one country feels the rumblings on the other side which may be perceived to be in contrast to or threatening own interests. In modern times, war means an armed conflict which could have any or all of the elements stated earlier as the prime movers and supported by cultural, social, religious, ideological or other factors which provide subsequent momentum. Sometimes a cause becomes a movement which may lead to internal strife and then take shape of a war where the warring nations may not have been party to the conflict initially. Like in the case of liberation and formation of Bangladesh in our own neighbourhood in 1971.

A brief look at how the two earlier WWs started. While they ended up horribly, but the trigger for WW-I was the killing of Franz Ferdinand The Archduke of Austria by the Serbians. Arms race after the Franco -Prussian war of 1870-71, competitive patriotism, German French hatred, economic imperialism, fall of Bismarck and the Italian desire for irredentism were the peripheral contributors to the build-up.

WW II started more in the nature of a revenge for the humiliating treaty of Versailles which the Germans were forced to commit to. The war started in the form of Blitzkrieg, the sudden annexation of Poland by the Germans while massive militarisation of Hitler’s Germany and Mussolini’s Italy were the contributors.

Post mid twentieth century, the war-torn world started to look up at a rejuvenated way of moving ahead. Industrialisation, economic development peaceful co-existence, growth and happiness indicis became the markers and buzzwords world over and the world got re-classified as developed, developing and underdeveloped. Numerous global agencies sprung up as watchdogs for different purposes till the 74th UNGA happened and we have a 2019 which is coming to a close. With that, also is coming closer the affinity of a certain states to war monger and cause global unrest. Let us analyse this more closely.

The likely trigger of a WW III would be (if it has to), in our backyard. These days we have a neighbour who once was a part and parted ways on grounds that the two major religions forming the Indian subcontinent had nothing in common and cannot co-exist. The machinations of the colonial masters also contributed to promote this mindset since for them a unified India would amount to reduction of their global footprint. The growing influence of then USSR in the region and thus reduced access to central Asia through Afghanistan which a pliable Pak would facilitate were the reasons the British encouraged the pre-independence religious manoeuvrings in favour of Pakistan.

Given the backdrop, of a likely conflict, let us analyse where are the current global flash points and how they may influence should an eventuality occur.

India (Kashmir), Pakistan (the whole of it), Myanmar (Kachin, Karen, Rohingya), Thailand, Israel- Palestine, Moro conflict- Philippines, Kurdish -Turkish conflict, The Sahel and insurgencies in parts of Africa, Nigerian communal conflicts etc. It must be understood that most /all of these are disputes. It’s interesting to differentiate between a dispute and a conflict. Something that requires reasonable measures to resolve is a dispute, and if it requires more than reasonable is a conflict. The reasonableness depends on the kind of diplomatese at play. Insurgency in Iraq has been going on since 2017 where ISIS/ISIL/Daesh (all the same) has been attempting to exercise territorial and religious control using philosophy of ideological similarity. They are looking at complete ethnic cleansing in Iraq. Known for their Al-Qaeda leanings, the group proclaimed itself as the Islamic State representing a global Caliphate and claiming ownership and authority over Muslims world over. This has been criticised by moderates but the group has presence in some measure in about 40 % of the Muslim world. In this format there is a “Control the Muslims” agenda. The Arab-Turkey love hate relationship continues and the economic considerations of the relationship do not suggest any involvement even though Turkey has been loud in proclaiming allegiance to a Pak sponsored diatribe in internationalising Kashmir. Cypress, Greece and Armenia are effective checkpoints at that end. Moreover, India putting on hold future defence manufacture programme may force Turkey see benefit in at least a non-partisan/ non-aligned attitude. Malasia, on the east doesn’t appear well read enough with the reality on ground while making an overture in favour of Pak’s Kashmir agenda. In fact, given the drone strikes at Saudi facilities attributed to the Houthis, the rivalries in the gulf region, Oil supply disruptions, Qatari LNG as the economic binder among the otherwise hostile Saudi, UAE and Qatar and a significant presence of the Indian diaspora contributing hugely to this region’s economy may prevent these nations to enter into a conflict either direct or sponsored. Moreover, the Islamic world itself is considerably split over the conservative and the moderate/liberal faction. There appear to be at present no serious contenders for a new world order among them.

Among the developed world, or correctly put, countries of P5 plus a few industrialised nations, the states are not in favour of committing resources to a nobody’s war. Britain, as some report a few days back suggest may be an India colony by 2030 is an indicator of the presence. France, US and Russia have military, business and people interests in India which directly influence their economy. None would want to shut shop. China, is a player where the relationship status in ‘Facebook’ terms may be said as “Complicated”. She is allegedly an all-weather friend as the Pakis claim but it’s never been endorsed by the Chinese though claims in public have often been made by both sides. She provides material, moral, financial, military and every other type of help to the Pakis including control of female and donkey population by taking them away permanently. They have convinced the Pakis to believe that there is a “Free Lunch”. In return, Pak doesn’t have much or anything to return which puts the Chinese long-term intention of putting so much into a hole ‘suspect’. With India on the contrary, there is a huge existing and future trade potential. The Chinese see India as a competitor-not an enemy and just to keep the ambers live back home show up angrily when a matter of border issue crops up. In my perception China may choose to remain neutral on the outside, yet offer covert support to a Pak influenced global crisis because a huge amount of her economic interests run through the CPEC with hopes fading. Why I used the term global crisis is that a belligerent nation, irrespective of its size has been endowed cunningly/surreptitiously a means to cause destruction and is threatening to use that capability. A capability which is to be used as a deterrent that’s it. Another reason for China is the presence of the Australia, Japan, India, US sponsored Quad on this side of South China Sea which may induce some wisdom in remaining non-active.

Given all of the above, nations may not be wanting to go into war with each other. But, if the means of igniting a war are in the hands of someone who doesn’t know the implications is like a child holding a lizard. The lizard may be put in the mouth or well… elsewhere. Both positions are not desirable. The consequences are that the entities who may not have had anything to do with that development get involved and the eventual sufferer is the child who had the lizard.

In the final analysis, it appears that out of 195 nations, 194 may not be staring at a war that would eventually turn up to be WW III. One, the 195th is certainly trying out its might to make it appear so. Back there, is a Baloch problem, a Pakhtoon problem and a Sind problem. Who knows whether 195 is reduced to 194? Or if you look at the problems independently, the figure of nations in the world may also become 197. A WW-III is certainly not on the plate in the near future.