- We’re back to the appeasement of 1939
By: Arshad Mahmood
While addressing the United Nations, Prime Minister Imran Khan proclaimed that the world today is back to 1939. Understanding the link of the prevailing global environment with that of 1939 is exceedingly imperative to realize how the world is at the threshold of yet another devastating war.
In his paper Back to the Future, John J. Mearsheimer used historic accounts of the Cold War as research tools to predict the geostrategic environment of Europe in the Post-Cold War era. Amongst the contemporary theorists, Fareed Zakaria – in his Rise of the Rest theory – identifies numerous similarities between the present global environment with that of the early 20th century that led to the demise of theBritish Empire.
At UN, Imran also predicted that the tumultuous period of 1939 is repeating itself. Seventy years ago many political scientists had been giving similar warnings. But such voices had remained unheard and the world experienced the most appalling event of the human history.
Kashmir – the contemporary Sudetenland – has been annexed by Hitler’s staunch aficionado Modi. The global players are once again mum either due to covert appeasement of India, not considering Kashmir on their agenda or totally not perceiving the magnitude of the threat of Modi to regional and international peace
It will help to recall the 1938-9 British appeasement of Germany. Sudetenland was a small bordering town and a disputed territory between Germany and Czechoslovakia. Under the 1919 Treaty of Versailles, the Sudetenland was taken away from Germany and given to Czechoslovakia– a new state which emerged after the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Amongst many others, it was the first seed of discord sown in Europe. Later, the USA had pledged that the people of Sudetenland would be allowed to decide their future. This, however, had never happened.
In 1938, during Munich Conference, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain concluded a dreadful appeasement deal with Adolf Hitler by not objecting to Germany’s seizure of Sudetenland as long as Hitler respected the sovereignty of the rest of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain was confident that he had preserved peace in Europe. His assumption – based on irrationality – proved totally wrong as Hitler continued his conquests, plunging all Europe in Second World War.
Kashmir is the Sudetenland of today. Being bones of contentions between two neighbouring states, both were promised to decide their fate themselves. The Kashmir case is even stronger as its people were guaranteed by the world highest forum to exercise their just right of self determination. The commitments to both were never fulfilled by the international community, hence, inviting imposition of laws of jungle on human beings. Where Hitler’s military voyage into Sudetenland resulted in devastation in Europe, Modi’s misadventure in Kashmir has brought South Asia to the brink of a horrible war.
The systemic environments in both the situations also bear identical characteristics. The First World War had proved to be the starting point of transition in the global world order. Before the outbreak of hostilities in 1939, the power equation on the world chessboard had already changed. Amongst seven great powers of the multipolar world, The UK and France were heavily depleted and trapped in financial debt. Germany and Italy wanted to resurge in global politics. China was also undergoing a revolution with an ambiguous power position in the world order. There were left only two contenders of the new bipolar world order, the USA and the USSR.
Almost the same situation prevails today in the Unipolar world. Though the USA maintains its ascendency, it has been losing its relative global power. Who are aspiring for the next superpower stature? To David Singer, the contenders must possess capabilities and intentions. Among the contemporary actors, resurging Russia and rising China have proved to be the only probables– though capabilities of the former and intentions of the latter are debatable. Hence, the picture on the global canvas is again smoggy. What will be the nature of next world order, is not yet clear but for sure the USA is fast losing supremacy. It, however, is determined to go to the last limit in containing China by Russia and prevent the power transition.
Under an uncertain global environment, the perceptions of the great and major powers were also fractured over emanating threats from: the fascist ideology of Germany and Italy in 1939; and, Hindutva in India, today. Many states– like those which emerged from the Austro-Hungarian Empire– having no status in the global power sharing, never raised their concerns. Influential world leaders– especially Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevel– opted to remain away from the crisis considering that the flames of war would not reach them. Most European states–losing economic balance and entangled in deep financial debts– considered appeasement the rational choice to stop Hitler. It was finally Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler– that Imran referred to– which led to the Second World War in 1939.
World opinion, even today is split on lowering clouds of war in South Asia. Notwithstanding that Kashmir is purely a humanitarian issue, it is not linked with the geoeconomic or geostrategic interests of European states. The Islamic Ummah may be concerned due to sharing Islamic ideology but is irrelevant in global politics. Above all the Middle Eastern Islamic states are fighting against their internal pressures.
Kashmir certainly matters to three global great players and has an intimate linkage with the power transition due to its close proximity to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. If CPEC is completed as planned, certain powers shall be bound to relinquish or share their hegemony with China and Russia. India is serving a key role in containing Asia’s rise and maintaining the status quo. China and Russia favour a resolution of the Kashmir issue because a peaceful South Asia is essential for their rise.
One can, also, spot two dissimilarities in both the situations. Firstly, the demography of Sudetenland favoured Germany, unlike that of Kashmir to India. Had the people of Sudetenland been granted the promised right of self-determination, they would have definitely opted for Germany, unlike Kashmiris who would vote against India. Secondly, neither could Pakistan be equated with any of the European states of 1939 to easily be engulfed by India, nor India with Nazi Germany, enjoying asymmetrical ascendency to threaten Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In view of the parallels drawn above, the world today is back to the future. Kashmir – the contemporary Sudetenland – has been annexed by Hitler’s staunch aficionado Modi. The global players are once again mum either due to covert appeasement of India, not considering Kashmir on their agenda or totally not perceiving the magnitude of the threat of Modi to regional and international peace. Whereas, many like Imran Khan have been shouting at the top of their voices to learn from history before it is too late.