THE recent political and military developments indicate the world to be on the verge of another long-cycle war. By definition, this kind of a war is different from conventional military conflicts involving two or more states. According to one conflict theorist, a long-cycle or a global war involves a large number of countries and has an impact on world economy and politics.

In fact, one of the crucial results is that it leads to a peculiar expansion and contraction in world economy that can make or mar the future of several states, including those considered to be significant powers. Although the war against terrorism would be of a different kind, Washington’s bid to involve almost the entire world in it would lead to the same results as one would expect in a conventional global war.

The last long-cycle war that the international community fought was World War II. It was a conventional, medium-intensity conflict sparked by Germany’s desire to change the European power balance and alter the direction of international economy in its favour. Japan and Italy also joined in for similar reasons. A counter-alliance formed between the other states of Europe fought to defeat the German designs, dragging the colonized countries in other parts of the world with them. One of the prominent features of this war was that these were fought between states.

The American-led war against terrorism and Washington’s insistence on countries to fall in line with it may well have the effect of dividing the world into two groups: those supporting terrorist elements and others willing to fight them. The one major difference in this case is that the enemy is not a state entity. At least, this is the situation at the moment. What is, however, interesting to note is that the US seems to be trying to give a face to the threat. The insistence on all nations to choose between the two sides would, in the medium to long term, will produce a political map that would contain some countries not siding with the US and others joining hands with it. Furthermore, those supporting the American stance will be rewarded by a larger share in the world economy.

Indubitably, terrorism must be fought by all in the larger interest of individual states as well as in the interest of peace and stability in the world. However, the new conflict would take an ugly form if it is fought in the traditional security paradigm. If the US or any other state uses the method of strengthening or pitting some groups of non-state actors against others and of pursuing policies that promise short-term benefits, not only will the threat persist, but the conflict within societies and between cultures is likely to intensify.

The world’s socio-political environment is indeed tense with the start of the anti-terrorism war that has now begun with air strikes against targets in Afghanistan. Since Oct 7, the US and British forces have been carrying out air strikes against military targets assuming that the destruction of these will wipe out the Taliban. The attacks would certainly weaken the rag-tag Taliban military, but this would not eliminate the possibility of resistance or of low-intensity conflict. The on-going air strikes may not be sufficient for complete annihilation. It is almost a replay of Vietnam.

The attacks on Afghanistan appear to be a response to Taliban’s constant provocations. The recent Taliban statement that bin Laden is in their protection made it harder for Bush to save his face at home Unless he retaliated forcefully. The start of military action has pre-empted the demand for credible evidence of bin Laden’s involvement in Sept 11 terrorist attacks. In any case, landing of troops in Afghanistan would increase the risk of the US getting sucked into the Afghan whirpool and political problems in Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries intensifying as a consequence any support provided to America. Mulla Omar and his cabal appear determined for a pitched battle.

The time lag between September 11 and the start of the air strikes gave the Taliban time to disperse and prepare for a long resistance. The intervening period must have been utilized by the American intelligence in planning the present action against Afghanistan. The question, nonetheless, is: does Washington really want to get hold of Osama bin Laden at this point? What if they are unable to ‘smoke’ him out? Indications are that there is a greater interest in changing the course of Afghan politics, making it conform to American security and commercial interests in Central Asia and the Middle East.

Interestingly, measures adopted by Washington such as increasing its defence budget in the wake of Sept 11 events seem like it is getting ready for a long haul in its fight against terrorism. The entire issue of what breeds terrorism and what makes terrorist resort to mass murder of innocent people in pursuit of their aims is far too complex a matter to be with in a conventional manner. Moreover, replacing one group of rulers with another for expedient reasons, would not solve Afghanistan’s problems or serve anyone’s long-term interests. It seems that the US-led operation against Afghanistan will be slow and comprehensive and may continue until spring when the Northern Alliance will be able to strengthen its military position. The change in government in Kabul, however, will not guarantee peace in Afghanistan or stability in the region which might remain turbulent over the next several years.

As in a long-cycle military conflict, the casualties of a war on terrorism will be enormous. The most prominent in this case will be economic casualties. In fact, this global war has a more serious economic dimension than the conventional military conflicts. Three dimensions of this are worth mentioning. First, the possibility of an economic blitzkrieg. Washington and its western allies will try to ‘smoke out’ terrorists or punish states that harbour them by tightening the financial noose around them. Locating and weeding out terrorist networks would include a tedious search for the terrorists’ financial pipeline. This process might lead to a financial crunch for a number of countries primarily in the developing world. The access to and transfer of financial resources would be stopped.

Here, it is important to point out the developing countries’ huge dependence on black or informal economy, and their tolerant attitude towards ‘hawala’ or ‘a hundi’ system of transfer of their expatriates’ remittance. Incidentally, terrorist networks also use these channels to sustain their operations. Although a tightening of control of this layer of the world economy would help unearth some terrorist networks, it would also affect the way a number of economies are functioning. In a way, this search would help reorder the international economy giving greater power to the resource-rich developed world. Of course, this would resultantly impact the socio-political order in these states. Poor people, who used to survive on the crumbs of the black economy, would find the space drastically shortened leading to domestic political turbulence.

Second, the spate of rage and aggression that the current conflict seems to have unleashed between the Muslim and Judiac-Christian civilizations would negatively affect economic growth and market trends. For developing countries like Pakistan that have agro-based economies or are dependent upon western markets, the possible implications are likely to be serious. It would be foolish not to take note of the highly negative images that have gone across or are being sent from Pakistan or the rest of the Muslim world to the West.

Third, the international economy will be exposed to a crunch that would affect growth in non-Muslim developing countries as well. One of the regions that will possibly be hit from the recession exacerbated by the September 11 incidents is Latin and South America, a region that has absolutely no involvement with the present crisis. The Bush administration’s instinct would be to increase funding of American military and its intelligence organizations leaving little resources for bailing out cash-strapped Third World countries. In any case, analysts are predicting that America’s military budget for fiscal year 2002 would hit $ 375 billion, a $ 66 billion increase over last year’s allocation.

Some analysts have already begun to point in the direction of the possible political turmoil that the region would experience as a result of scarce resources and contraction of American and global markets. In fact, one of the predictions is that this would lead to the popularity of the old communist leadership in a number of Latin and South American countries. Similarly, a number of countries in South East Asia and Japan would feel the impact of an increased recession. A further push towards poverty has the potential of producing more terrorists or people who view the current global system as being highly unjust.

The continuous use of the jargon of the traditional security paradigm is dangerous and would intensify conflicts and polarizations within societies. Perhaps, a better option is for the international community to collectively put some life into institutions like the United Nations enabling it to solve political problems that often lead to disenchantment and terrorism. Moreover, while making any new law against terrorism the international community has to stand up to its responsibility with each state abiding by the principle of not involving non-state actors in conflicts or to demobilize, disarm and reintegrate ‘holy warriors’ after a conflict is over. Both undertakings are understandably difficult.

Traditionally, countries have found it militarily and financially expedient to pass on their burden of war-fighting to non-state actors. In the second case, countries tend not to behave responsibly in cleaning up the mess they sometimes create. For instance, in Afghanistan’s case the US left the country after the withdrawal of Soviet troops. Pakistan, on the other hand, paid no attention to the lingering effects of the Soviet invasion despite that it was the key player during the Afghan crisis of the 1980s. It must be realized that terrorism cannot be rooted out without attending to its root cause.

IF the agony of Afghan people is not to be prolonged, the end of the current war should be followed by effective economic rehabilitation and comprehensive restructuring of the its economy.

If that had been done earler following the withdrawal of the Russians from there in February, 1989, after ten years of excesses, the present crisis and the problem of Osama bin Laden there might not have surfaced.

President George Bush now says the US will not run away from Afghanistan after its liberation from the Taliban and liquidation of the Al-Qaeda organization headed by bin Laden. It will strive for the economic rehabilitation of the country and invest in its economic reconstruction. Britain’s Tony Blair says the same and so are other western leaders and Japan.

But the kind of economic rehabilitation that follows the war would depend on what kind of political set-up emerges there following the fall of the Taliban, what kind of priorities they have and what kind of development plans emerge. Equally important is what kind of funding they will have, how is that distributed, and how the realisation of the objectives is ensured.

As for relief assistance for the Afghan refugees the US Japan, UK, Norway, etc., have made their announcements. UN officials after a two-day meeting in Geneva have announced that international aid agencies have been promised about 600 million dollars as aid to the Afghan people to help them survive the winter. The announcements came in response to the appeal of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan for 584 million dollars. Some of the funding has yet to be approved by the parliaments of respective countries and the fund is to be shared between UN agencies and organizations like the International Red Cross.

The US State Department says the US is the world’s larget contributor to the Afghan people with this year’s total surpassing 180 million dollars. And the aid is to be distributed in a manner that it does not fall fall into the hands of Taliban.

The US says this war is unique as it involves fighting and feeding at the same time. It is fighting one kind of Afghans or militants who have gone there from outside while feeding their victims or victims of the war. And it wants to stay around assisting the Afghans after the war so that another kind of Taliban does not spring up there after the elimination of the present set.

Developing the economy of Afghanistan along the right lines is of interest not only to the US or West as a whole but also to the six neighbours of Afghanistan, including Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Tekemenistan and China.

Not only the Western countries should help in the economic rehabilitation and reconstruction of Afghanistan but also its neighbours. Russia too is showing its interest in helping Afghanistan and is making its contribution to the welfare of the refugees.

A settled and economically prospering Afghanistan is of direct and immediate interest to Pakistan. Early in he 1990s Pakistan had signed an agreement with Tajikistan to bring 1,000 MW of its surplus electricity from there to Pakistan which desperately needed that power then but the agreement could not materialize because of the disturbances in Afghanistan.

A stable Afghanistan is essential for proper trade between Pakistan and the Central Asian states. The Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) which became 10 from its original three members — Pakistan, Iran and Turkey — could not make any headway in the areas of trade and mutual investment because of the disturbed Afghanistan certainly not at its eastern end.

Now a good deal of money is to be spent on developing Gwadar Port which originally was to be the gateway to Central Asia instead of the congested Karachi. A great deal of money has to be invested on building the road from Gwadar to the north as well as on a railway system. The coastal road we are building is useful to the people of the Mekran Coast, and need not be used for bringing goods from Gwadar to Karachi by road.

Experts argue that kind of large investment on the port, road and railway tracks is useful only if that would mean their use by the Central Asian states for export and import of goods. That can take place only if Afghanistan is settled and helpful for economic transactions.

Pakistan on its part can help Afghanistan with technical assistance as it does not have the money to provide large assistance. That could take the shape of professionals like engineers, doctors, bankers and other technical people to rebuild the economy.

But the more important question is how mmuch of the technical manpower of Afghanistan who fled the country over the years choose to return home? The Western countries to which these technical personnel had fled have to encourage them return home and serve their country. Otherwise too many foreigners may be seen in the towns of Afghanistan and that may not be good to begin with. Educated Afghan women, including doctors, teachers and health personnel should also be encouraged to return home. In the social re-generation of the country the women have to play a large role.

In the economic rehabilitation of the country Gen. Pervez Musharraf gives top priority to water supply and land reclamation. That is essential in a hilly country in which only 13 per cent of the land is arable and 67 per cent of the people depend on agriculture and animal husbandry.

The situation in this regard is extremely critical after three years of extreme drought which has wiped out the animal wealth of the country as well. Persons who had 50 heads of cattle are now said to have two or three animals. The number of animals will have to be increased through effective cattle-farming.

The banking system will have to be rehabilitated and strengthened and expanded so that the people come to depend less and less on moneylenders and money-changers, who were selling their highest denomination currency note of 100,000 Afghanis for 80 US cents until the war began. Afghanistan is estimated to have an inflation rate of 240 per cent.

Afghanistan’s exports by the year 1996 had sunk to 80 million dollars. The country is rich in minerals, fruits, nuts, emeralds, rubis and laps Lazuli. Its fruits and nuts, some of the best in the world, can earn a great deal if the industry is properly organized and the growers and exporters are helped to expand their trade. Exports of its carpets can also earn a lot.

In recent years more of the smuggled goods have been coming from Dubai or other Gulf ports via Balochistan in very large quantities. Whole containers of such goods came with the assistance of the customs staff. They were commercial operations and not simple smuggling to help the consumers.

While that kind of smuggling continues, trade with Afghanistan took yet another shape more helpful to Pakistani smugglers than to Afghans. It took the form of larger Afghan transit trade under which the goods allegedly meant for Afghanistan tax-free never reached there, but the only empty wagons or trucks did after their contents were unloaded prior to that in Pakistan. And some of the goods went in by one route and came out by another.

The post-war economic re-generation of Afghanistan depends on the number of refugees who go back and resume their normal trade or industry, like carpet weaving or textile manufacturing apart from agriculture and animal husbandry.

So not only Pakistan and Iran should participate in promoting the economic regeneration of Afghanistan but also the Central Asian states when Afghanistan’s population is as large as 25 million. But its population growth has been relatively low — 2.4 per cent — because of the high infant mortality of 150 for 1,000 births.

There has been talk of a Marshall Plan in the US for Asia, or for the poor countries of Asia. Afghanistan is the best place to begin with. Unlike Europe which endured World War II for five years, Afghanistan has suffered from war in one form or another for 22 years, and destuction of its economy, besides human life, has been very heavy. The Afghans have paid a very heavy price for the war.

But instead of individual countries playing a major role in the economic reconstruction of Afghanistan the UN should take the lead with major assistance from the US. And finally the success of any economic reconstruction would depend on the extent to which educated and technically qualified Afghans participate in that.

THE destruction ten years ago of the Soviet Union, that socialist monolith which stretched across 11 time zones, was possibly the greatest disaster that befell the people of the Third World. Not only did it rob the nations of Africa, Asia and South America of the opportunity of playing off one superpower against the other, it triggered a chain reaction which resulted in, among other things, the disintegration of the former state of Yugoslavia.

On Christmas Day in 1991, when the 74-year old USSR disbanded and 15 former Soviet republics spun off on independent trajectories, Russia had completely lost its moorings. And one was reminded of Winston Churchill’s famous quip about Russia — ‘a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.’ The effects of the cataclysm are still being felt in sputterings of civil war from Chechnya to Central Asia and in diplomatic corridors everywhere.

The communist parties of Italy, France, India and Cuba still look back nostalgically to the days when the hammer and sickle fluttered loftily in the wind. But interestingly enough, there is evidence to suggest that similar sentiments are now being expressed inside Russia, not just among members of the Communist Party, but also other groups with different political alignments. In fact, a poll conducted earlier this year by the Public Opinion Foundation, pointed out that 79 per cent of Russians now regret the demise of the Soviet Union — up from 9 per cent in 1992. Many Russians long for the simple certainties of the Soviet period when nobody went hungry, when everybody had enough clothes, and living conditions for most citizens were about the same.

The Soviet Union claimed not only to be a military giant, but also an industrial colossus. It nurtured an economy which, for all its clumsiness, still produced twice as much oil, steel, cement, aluminium and rubber than the United States. Many of the products were, of course, substandard and were funnelled through the central planning system. However, it wasn’t production, but distribution, which was the main economic problem. On a trip to Prague in 1980 I remember reading with considerable amusement, how two million bicycle produced in Hungary and destined for East Germany, landed up in Bulgaria!

After Yeltsin took lover from Gorbachev, things started to go horribly wrong in a country which once vied with the United States for world supremacy, and which has now become a panoply of raw thrusting consumerism and newfound wealth jostling with age-old images of ingrained poverty. the jarring mosaic of Russian society consists of a thin layer of very rich people, a thick chunk of very poor and a small, vulnerable middle class whose future is quite uncertain. Life in Russia during the last eight years has, in fact, witnessed a series of spiralling economic and social disasters. In late November 1998, one read in European newspapers about the new swanky Russian millionaires in their luxurious German cars, accompanied by brigades of bodyguards, drive past the very spot where 16 Moscow citizens froze to death.

Observers have pointed out that during Yeltsin’s reign, few people paid taxes. Corruption was rampant. Western investment was shy. Teachers, doctors and soldiers went unpaid. AIDS, drug abuse and pornography spread like wild fire. Yakuza-type criminal gangs were everywhere, and to top it all, nuclear submarines were shut down because the defence ministry couldn’t pay its bills! It was inevitable that the exchequer would run out of money, and it had become fairly obvious that the Russian state was living on borrowed time.

The people’s misery was further compounded in August 1998, when the rouble was devalued. Thousands lost their money, banks and other financial institutions folded and Russia’s credit rating sank to its lowest depth. It’s the very opposite of the egalitarian society that communism set out to build, and a very long way from the prosperous democracy Russia yearns to be. Devaluation spurred internal production, especially food. But this was insufficient to meet the demand.

This is the scenario that the 48-year old President Vladimir Putin inherited when he took over the nuclear suitcase from President Boris Yeltsin on December 31, 1999. A man who relishes difficult choices, most observers see him as a benevolent force that will push on with privatization while trying to clean up the system. The fact that he took on reformers like Yeltsin’s economic guru Anatoly Chubais was seen as a good sign. Chubais had, of course, fallen out of favour when former communist apparatchiks made off with the best assets. But his insistence on privatization has led the way to reforms.

Putin made his intentions quite clear when he said that Russia’s economy would have to grow at a rate of eight per cent a year over the next 15 years, to catch up with the economies of Spain or Portugal! At 190 billion dollars, Russia’s GDP is only a fifth the size of China’s and one-fiftieth that of the United States. Putin, nevertheless, has four factors working in his favour. The first is the stabilization of the economy. The second is a worldwide boom in the price of crude oil, one of Russia’s main exports. The third is the gradual re-emergence of investor confidence in the country after the mass exodus of portfolio capital in the summer of 1998. And the fourth is the fact that Russians, in spite of their physical and intellectual privations, are still better educated and more cultured than the populations of almost all European countries. Moscow University has always had the highest academic standards and in many disciplines is ahead of the Sorbonne.

There is a nagging bloated balance of payments debt of over three billion dollars. But the impression that is being circulated is that ever since Putin made a resolve to free prices, establish markets, get banks operating and kept his finger on the reform button, things are likely to turn out all right in the end.

In recent months western financial journals which support the switch-over to a market economy, are constantly on the look-out for success stories, and have been identifying people like Victor Ishayev, governor of Khabarovsk and Igor V. Makarov, president of Itera, who have achieved a measure of success in their respective fields. But these stars in the new Russia are isolated luminaries.

Western political analysts, while they welcome these experiments in market reform, haven’t really altered their perceptions of the great Bear and still harbour strong views on Russian nationalism. The hardliners among the scholars see nationalism as a malevolent force and follow a tradition or belief in an unchanging national culture which has persisted from the days of tsarism to the Soviet and post-Soviet periods. This essentialist reasoning is what has led westerners during the Soviet period to declare that communism was “little more than the new face of eternal Russia.” In the post-Soviet era the viewpoint that Russian culture is unchanging, persists, and has bred an ethnic, collectivist and authoritarian nationalism that is infused with anti-westernism, exaggerated claims of uniqueness and an apocalyptic sense of mission.

SUNDAY dawned with one of those crisp, clear mornings that so distinguish the change in seasons from summer to autumn. Despite the cataclysmic events of September 11, many people’s thoughts turned to picnics by the Potomac River or drives in the countryside.

But even before family debates about where to go and what to do could be settled, news came of the US-led strikes on Afghanistan. The retaliation was expected almost from the moment of the attacks on the World Trade Centre towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. But when the offensive actually began, it nevertheless marked another upsetting moment in what has become a disturbing time for most Americans and those who live in America.

Nothing seems certain any longer. There was a familiar and an orderly rhythm to everyone’s life. You worked hard at your job, and then you relaxed. You went out to eat or to meet friends. There was a sense of contentment, of not really caring about the problems of the world or people beyond your immediate circle. Even those from other countries who have made America their home exulted in telling doubting Thomases among their compatriots of how safe, secure and comfortable life was in the United States. A couple from Karachi you know that makes such painstaking efforts to rationalize their continued stay in Washington always said they couldn’t go back because of the insecurity and the poor law and order situation prevailing in Pakistan. They are noticeably quieter now at social gatherings.

Sunday’s retaliation might be seen as bringing some form of cathartic release for the pent-up anger and outrage felt by most Americans about what was done to them on September 11. But it has raised new concerns. There is anxiety now about what else can happen; there’s the fear about biological warfare, with one person in Florida dying of anthrax and another unwell with similar symptoms. There are apprehensions about nerve gas attacks. People are on edge.

Many countries have lived for a long time with various manifestations of terrorism and violence. Societies in many developing countries are inherently unstable and prone to violence resulting from sectarian tensions or political and economic deprivation. Many people, like the Palestinians, suffer from such crushing injustice and oppression on a daily basis that they accept violence, whether state-sponsored or coming from exploitative elites, as part of life. Except for isolated incidents like the Timothy McVeigh bombing, the earlier Trade Centre attack and the firing outside the CIA headquarters, Americans had not experienced any sustained encounters with deeds perpetrated to make a political point.

For such a country and such a people, the quick return to a semblance of normal life after such a traumatic experience as they suffered on Sept 11 — which would indeed have shaken up any people anywhere — must be considered as quite remarkable. Even the reaction in the form of hate attacks should be seen in perspective and their incidence considered in proportion to the country’s population of 250 million people and the fact that efforts to lessen racial prejudice against non-whites have made real progress only in the last two or three decades.

However, life here has undergone a profound transformation. The everyday routine may appear the same — the getting up in the morning, the rush to get on to the road before the rush hour or to catch the metro, the trek to the Starbucks coffee shop in the neighbourhood to snatch a beagle and a cup of coffee. But the methodical orderliness that marked the life of Americans from day to day can no longer be taken for granted. They have been forced to confront many unpalatable realities and realize, in bewilderment, that there is a world outside that they do not fully understand and there is a rage against America that they cannot quite comprehend.

They have to reckon with the fact that Osama bin Laden is not just a wild-eyed or deranged fanatic or societal misfit: he is chillingly political and is driven by clear political objectives in view. They have been forced to ask why their policies arouse so much rage in other people. We helped the Muslims of Bosnia, we helped the Muslims of Kosovo, we provide aid to the Palestine Authority, Americans ask, then why are so many Muslims against us?

Though such questions are being asked, the debate is still largely denominational. It is still not clearly grasped that the dimension is far bigger, that it has overtones, in a convulated way, almost of the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggle of the post-World War II era. Osama bin Laden is against America because he is also against the house of Saud that the US supports and the US presence in Saudi Arabia and against Israel.

It is unfortunate, to use the mild word favoured by editorial writers, for many other people in the developing world who also believe in some of these propositions that it should be a right-wing, fanatical conservative fundamentalist like bin Laden, who believes in the same kind of an oppressive social order against which colonized people previously rebelled, who should be articulating some of these values.

It is equally unfortunate that he has chosen the weapons of indiscriminate terror to make himself heard, thus discrediting the sustained and principled struggle of many political organizations and groups for justice. How can his association with the Taliban regime and his insistence on taking Muslims back to his own notions of what an Islamic society should be win him sympathy from those who, much before he appeared on the scene, opposed the US role in Vietnam and have opposed US bullying and diktat since then?

Instead of being accepted as someone standing for freedom, liberty and democracy, he is perceived by many as advocating the antithesis of what a modern, evolving Muslim social order should look like. What should have been a political struggle fought through accepted means of protest has become a religious, puritanical crusade. Much has been turned upside down.

In that context, it should be sobering to remember, as former president Bill Clinton reminded us in an address on Tuesday, that Mahatma Gandhi was killed not by a Muslim but by a fundamentalist Hindu because Gandhi was seen as siding with Muslim rights and that Yitzhak Rabin was murdered by a revivalist Jew and not a Palestinian because Rabin was, as a matter of practical necessity, trying to reach out to Palestinians.

America’s answer to September 11 has been to attack Afghanistan. Given the magnitude of what happened on that tragic day, such action was inevitable. But beyond that, what? Will the US be prepared to take a fresh look at some of its own policies abroad? If it does not do so, the present sense of insecurity prevailing in America may not be easily dispelled.