As the world writes eulogies on western leaders' role in the fall of the Berlin Wall, facts suggest they were as apprehensive about it as the Soviets, says SAURABH KUMAR SHAHI
On the eve of the 20th year of the fall of the Berlin Wall, eulogies were penned for the western leaders of that time. As hundreds of thousands gathered to celebrate at where the Berlin Wall once stood, names of George Bush Senior, Margaret Thatcher and Francois Mitterrand were brought back into reckoning. As people profoundly thanked these leaders for demolishing the sign of “subjugation”, nobody cared and talked about what was going on in the minds of these very leaders in the days leading to the ‘Fall’.
Interesting documents, in possession of National Security Archive based in Washington D.C., reflect the profound apprehensions and uneasiness which engulfed the capitals on both sides of the Mediterranean and beyond, on the days leading to the fall. The discomfort, in many cases, was to the point of outright opposition to the possibility of German unification. The documents, mostly minutes of the meetings, drawn from the archives of Soviet, American and European secret files conclude that perhaps all those eulogies were too farfetched. After all, George Bush Senior, Margaret Thatcher and Francois Mitterrand did not help in bringing down the Wall. In fact, far from it, they had actually liked the status quo and did not want turbulence in Europe.
For example, what Polish Solidarity hero Lech Walesa told the then West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl on the morning of the fall was, “Events in the GDR are developing too quickly” and “at the wrong time.” He was sceptical and fearful that the Wall might fall in a few weeks. He was so apprehensive that he even advised Kohl that “one must try to slow them down”. It actually fell that night only. He was fearful that if it happened, Helmut Kohl will shift his priorities to GDR. He’ll also ask the West to divert all the aid to the GDR region and thus, an apprehensive Walesa thought Poland will be left “in the background.” As if fate was taking dictation from Walesa, Kohl indeed abruptly terminated his Poland visit and flew back to Germany the same night to deal with the evolving situation.
Another interesting discussion is the one between British Iron Lady and conservative ideologue, the then Prime Minister of UK, Margaret Thatcher, and the then Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. It took place on September 3, the same year. As Thatcher was aware that her views on German unification were radical and opposite of what the West propagated, she engaged in an off-the-record conversation. However, Gorbachev’s aide Anatoly Chernyaev rushed out of the room immediately after the conversation and jotted them down. Thatcher had said that “Britain and western Europe are not interested in the unification of Germany. The words written in the NATO communiqué may sound different but disregard them.” She also tried to influence Gorbachev by saying that the US too was not very different in its thought. She wanted him to believe her at any cost. “We are not interested in the destabilisation of eastern Europe or the dissolution of the Warsaw treaty either ... I can tell you that this is also the position of the US president,” the Iron Lady had added. A perplexed Chernyaev drew the conclusion that Thatcher wanted to foil German unification “with our hands” and not hers.
For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2009
On the eve of the 20th year of the fall of the Berlin Wall, eulogies were penned for the western leaders of that time. As hundreds of thousands gathered to celebrate at where the Berlin Wall once stood, names of George Bush Senior, Margaret Thatcher and Francois Mitterrand were brought back into reckoning. As people profoundly thanked these leaders for demolishing the sign of “subjugation”, nobody cared and talked about what was going on in the minds of these very leaders in the days leading to the ‘Fall’.
Interesting documents, in possession of National Security Archive based in Washington D.C., reflect the profound apprehensions and uneasiness which engulfed the capitals on both sides of the Mediterranean and beyond, on the days leading to the fall. The discomfort, in many cases, was to the point of outright opposition to the possibility of German unification. The documents, mostly minutes of the meetings, drawn from the archives of Soviet, American and European secret files conclude that perhaps all those eulogies were too farfetched. After all, George Bush Senior, Margaret Thatcher and Francois Mitterrand did not help in bringing down the Wall. In fact, far from it, they had actually liked the status quo and did not want turbulence in Europe.
For example, what Polish Solidarity hero Lech Walesa told the then West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl on the morning of the fall was, “Events in the GDR are developing too quickly” and “at the wrong time.” He was sceptical and fearful that the Wall might fall in a few weeks. He was so apprehensive that he even advised Kohl that “one must try to slow them down”. It actually fell that night only. He was fearful that if it happened, Helmut Kohl will shift his priorities to GDR. He’ll also ask the West to divert all the aid to the GDR region and thus, an apprehensive Walesa thought Poland will be left “in the background.” As if fate was taking dictation from Walesa, Kohl indeed abruptly terminated his Poland visit and flew back to Germany the same night to deal with the evolving situation.
Another interesting discussion is the one between British Iron Lady and conservative ideologue, the then Prime Minister of UK, Margaret Thatcher, and the then Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. It took place on September 3, the same year. As Thatcher was aware that her views on German unification were radical and opposite of what the West propagated, she engaged in an off-the-record conversation. However, Gorbachev’s aide Anatoly Chernyaev rushed out of the room immediately after the conversation and jotted them down. Thatcher had said that “Britain and western Europe are not interested in the unification of Germany. The words written in the NATO communiqué may sound different but disregard them.” She also tried to influence Gorbachev by saying that the US too was not very different in its thought. She wanted him to believe her at any cost. “We are not interested in the destabilisation of eastern Europe or the dissolution of the Warsaw treaty either ... I can tell you that this is also the position of the US president,” the Iron Lady had added. A perplexed Chernyaev drew the conclusion that Thatcher wanted to foil German unification “with our hands” and not hers.
For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2009
China’s opening of a new front in its ongoing standoff with India. After having issued stapled visas and getting involved in projects in Pak-occupied Kashmir, came its protest against the Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh, which China claims as its territory. Now, there are reports of a growing number of militants getting active in the restive northeast.
'Water' would feature prominently in the list. But then the same word when used in movie (not as movie title!) never raises any eyebrows. The way water is wasted for shooting purposes in tinsel town is really uneconomical. The usage of water in any movie's shooting can’t be brought down to nil, but then sheer and blatant wastage of water should also not be ignored.
smelt an opportunity to capture Delhi, gathered a bunch of warriors and started marching. But he died on the way. For about six centuries, nobody from Gujarat eyed Delhi. However, since 1946, three people appeared on the scene. The first was Sardar Patel, a serious contender of Jawaharlal Nehru for the prime ministry. Nowadays, Narendra Modi’s name is doing the rounds. However, his chance of leading the nation is minimal, given the political health of BJP and bitter inter-party rivalry. The only Gujarati to go all the way was Morarji Desai. He tried in the 1960s to emerge as Nehru ‘s heir and later became Indira Gandhi’s strongest rival. He even succeeded in becoming the Prime Minister once, relegating the ‘iron lady’ to the political margins, albeit for a very short time. The tussle started in 1964 and was to last till Indira’s assassination in 1984.
Those involved in the plot or those who stood to benefit from this act will invariably say that the murder of Sheikh Mujib helped Bangladesh get rid of being subservient to Delhi and Moscow. It is true that Mujib and his party Awami League had and still has a pro-India image. India extended her hand of cooperation to Bangladesh’s struggle for independence. India gave shelter to 10 million refugees, trained the Bangladeshi liberation fighters, provided all sorts of supplies to them and finally, the Indian Army fought against the occupying Pakistani forces. So the good relations between Bangladesh and India during Mujib’s time was an obvious and logical conclusion of the nine months of bloody war.
long time been a favoured driveway. With companies like Hyundai, Toyota and even Ford choosing this country as their manufacturing hub, the sector is enjoying one of its best growth phases ever. However, one cannot deny that this is a labour intensive industry and it has hence been buffeted by recurring incidents of labour unrest in the country. Industry watchers claim that India (which is currently the second largest two-wheeler market in the world after China) is well on course to becoming the seventh largest passenger car market worldwide (currently the eleventh largest) by 2016. However, the current labour problems that are looming large over companies like Rico, Honda Motorcycle and Scooters India Limited (HMSI) and Sunbeam in the Gurgaon-Manesar belt have once again ignited the debate on whether India can indeed grow into a major hub for automotives in such a scenario. The billion-dollar quation to be asked is: will such incidents slow down the growth of the Indian automotive industry in the long run?
temporarily. Some doctors, who were rendering free services to HIV positive victims, have stopped work because they allege that they are getting no help from the government. Dr I. S. Gilada, secretary of the AIDS Society of India, blames the state government for the sudden spread of HIV/AIDS in the state.
place in Iran in the past two decades, suicide bombers targeted a delegation of Revolutionary Guard leaders. At the time of the attack the Guards were on a tour of Pishin district — bordering Pakistan — to facilitate a meeting with tribal leaders in the region.
CPI(M)’s K.K. Ragesh by a huge margin. The other aspect which makes the battle for Kannur interesting is that M.V. Jayarajan is pitted against former comrade-in-arms A.P. Abdullakkutty, who has twice represented the constituency in Parliament for CPI(M). Abdullakkutty, who joined the Congress after his controversial ejection from CPI(M), also takes this as a critical contest as nothing less than a victory could baptise him as a Congressman. However, Abdullakkutty won’t have it easy. Within the Congress itself, there is a group of disgruntled leaders who fear that a victorious Abdullakkutty can put paid to their future political careers. Both the CPI(M) and the Congress are accusing one another of preparing to rig the election. While the Congress alleges that the CPI(M) leadership, with the help of the district administration, has added bogus voters’ names to the voters’ list, CPI(M) accuses the Congress of trying to spread unrest in the constituency. A case has been registered against Sudhakaran charging him with unbailable offences including that of disrupting the duty of a tehsildar. Sudhakaran, of course, refutes the charge and alleges that the district collector has become a tool in the hands of the CPI(M). Thus, Kannur has emerged as the hottest battleground among all the three constituencies.