Speaking at the annual White House Correspondents Association dinner, Obama mock-threatened the boyband idolised by his daughters with these words: Boys - dont get any ideas. Two words for you: Predator drones. You will never see it coming. The audience applauded the Presidents cruel and coarse humour without realising that the said remarks in themselves and the appalling response was being watched by the world at large as an indicator of a specific mindset in how to deal with conflict management by the US political establishment and the American public. The implicit message in the Presidents speech was that a lethal, quick and debilitating response by brutal force to any adversary is the strategic doctrine of the Obama administration in face of a conflict situation - deliver the blow first, ask questions later Human conduct and behaviour are the mirror image of the internal thought process which reflects hidden intentions. Humanity at large has devised language and used rhetoric as a concealing strategy to hide intentions. Take for example, Obamas rhetorical excess. He came to the American presidency with a specific promise of change and a commitment to world peace and building bridges with Islamic nations. In reality, what Obama has done is to expand the American right-wing ideological doctrine to promote worldwide conflicts and to conduct conflict management by military force. Obama expanded the war on terror into North-West Pakistan, wrote Pankaj Mishra in the Guardian news recently. It is instructive to understand the relationship between time (as a process in the execution of a specific policy) and real intentions of policymakers in the conducting of conflict management. Obama, and for that matter the entire Western political establishment, has been quick in delivering military solutions against the Afghan insurgents (though absurdly impractical and strategically flawed). On the other hand, the Western powers and now Obamas administration have been deliberating timelessly about giving a fair and just solution to Palestinian issues of a homeland after theirs was illegally snatched by the Zionists six decades ago. There seems to be no concern, either on a humanitarian basis or for political efficaciousness, that a long period of nearly seven decades has gone by without giving due justice to the impoverished people made homeless by deliberate political intentions plotted in Western capitals. Consequently, it is obvious that the longer the time span in the resolution of a conflict management, the more this process points towards hidden and deceitful intentions of the major political actors involved in perhaps not giving a just and reasonable solution to the issue. Another vivid example of this long extended time span and deceitfully concealed political intentions in conflict management is India dragging its feet on the Kashmir issue. Though over 60 years have gone by, the Indian political establishment was still deliberating on the issues of confidence-building measures, economic development, strengthening of ties across the Line of Control, good governance and centre-state relations with Srinagar in May 2006. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs two-day visit to Kashmir on June 7, 2010, was primarily to discuss with the Kashmiri Chief Minister, Omar Abdullah, the movement forward in the dialogue process and how it can be taken to its logical conclusion. The question is: what logical conclusion? Isnt it absurd to be still talking about the movement forward in the dialogue process after over 60 years have gone by? Why is India still at the dialogue process stage? Doesnt it tell us loudly and clearly that India has no intention of resolving the Kashmir issue or making a commitment to bow to the demands and to the political aspirations of the Kashmiri people? The fact of the matter is that India is not planning to let the Kashmiri people decide on their own political future and on their own political independence or destiny. The long time span combined with hidden Indian intentions is a testament to this ugly political reality. The Kashmiri people are left with only one option: continue their struggle for independence in whatever manner and by whatever means they have to Compare this deliberate delaying strategy of long time spans intertwined with concealed intentions in conflict management with the swiftness of political action in a given conflict situation where intentions are honourable and long time span tactics are not used to conceal hidden political intentions and agendas. Brazils President Lula da Silva and Turkeys PM Tayyip Erdogan were able to hammer out in a mere 18 hours of negotiations with Irans President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the agreement to resolve and defuse the so-called international crisis over Irans nuclear activities. The agreement makes provisions for Iran to transfer 1200kgs of low enriched uranium to Turkey within one month and to receive in exchange 120kgs of higher-enriched uranium for medical purposes within one year. Case closed, solution found, conflict management by good intentions and swiftness in time put together in viable political judgment and simple prompt political action. Not acceptable (as expected) in Washington, London, and some of Americas allies who have dismissed the agreement as a delaying tactic. The practitioners of delayed timeframes and hidden intentions cannot come to terms with sophisticated swiftness in diplomatic skills and the search for peaceful resolution in an initiative that might change the prevailing strategic outlook in global conflict management. There is another important side to it: If the Tehran agreement sticks, the US and its allies fear that there might be a recognition in the developing countries that rising powers have a stake in sustaining a rules-based global order. And that is precisely what the US-Western imperialist political establishments cannot imagine contending with. Rules-based global order is not an option viewed favourably and positively by Washington and its allies in Western European capitals. The sky will fall should the likes of China, Turkey and Brazil be the flag-bearers of a rules-based global order and contribute to the development of a conflict management strategy as major political actors. From the western perspective, they should simply be stakeholders in a system that must remain undisputedly controlled by the US and its allies. Seen from Ankara or Brasilia, or indeed from Beijing, there is an important snag in this argument. They are not being invited to craft a new international order but rather to abide by the old (Western) rules, wrote Philip Stephens in the Financial Times recently. A rules-based global order - that does not seem to be a prospect in the near future Didnt Obama say: Boys - dont get any ideas. Two words for you: Predator drones. You will never see it coming. That is the shape of things to come.Unless we, the people around the world, collectively put an end to the US-Western mindset Unfortunately, India has already fallen into that Western way of thinking The writer is an academic, political analyst and conflict-resolution expert. Email: hl_mehdi@hotmail.com