Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
The year that changed the world THE year 2001 will be remembered in history as a landmark year of the 21st century. But until September 11 when the terrorist attacks on the WTC in New York changed the course of international relations, 2001 was quite a nondescript year. The events that followed 11/9 — mainly America’s devastating war against terrorism in Afghanistan — overshadowed world politics of the preceding and following months of 2001. True, the international system was in the process of changing since the cold war ended in 1989, but it was in 2001 that a new world order started emerging with stunning speed. What did it signify? It confirmed the trend towards a unipolar world. The United States emerged as the only superpower which found itself in a position to determine unilaterally the shape of international politics. If the attacks on the American symbols of economic and military might in New York and Washington were senseless and savage, equally mindless has been the war against terrorism which the Bush administration unleashed with brutal fury, leaving thousands of innocent Afghan civilians dead and homeless. Yet, the American power was seemingly so invincible that many states fell in line and joined the so-called world coalition while non-participants chose to remain discreetly quiet. Tragic though the enormous loss of life in New York was (3,000 by final count), it hardly justified the devastation of Afghanistan and the massive killing of the Afghans. A factor which certainly helped the Bush administration emerge unscathed from its military adventure was the alienation that many, including Muslim populations, had begun to feel towards the Islamic fundamentalists who have been all too willing to resort to “jihad” against those who are not on their side. Hence there was relief all around when the Taliban regime in Afghanistan collapsed like a house of cards. The Taliban had come to be viewed as the symbol of Islamic militancy. The absence of a balance of power mechanism in world politics left the American government subject to virtually no constraint. With President George W. Bush not exactly reputed for his statesmanship or for political sagacity, the prospect of America’s hegemony in world affairs is not a very pleasing one. Besides, the weakening of Moscow trapped in the throes of its economic crisis and China’s difficult transition process ensured that the two erstwhile Communist states ceased to be a countervailing force to check the exercise of unbridled power by the US. This has ominous implications for the Third World. President Bush had already begun to set the tone of his foreign policy in the pre-September period. Soon after taking over the presidency, Bush had announced his withdrawal from the Kyoto Treaty on global warming. Then he let it be known that the Anti-ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty with Russia would not be allowed to come in the way of his national missile defence scheme. When its actions cost the US its seat in a UN human rights panel, the Congress retaliated by holding up payment of the country’s UN arrears. The events of September 11 and the virtual military walk-over into Afghanistan gave President Bush the confidence to renounce the ABM and dictate terms in world affairs without any let or hindrance. The most dangerous implication of the new situation is for the rule of law as it had evolved over the centuries. It appeared to be poised for a drastic change with the world community regressing towards a might-is-right syndrome. September 11 neatly divided the year into two parts. In the first part the traditions of politics and diplomacy were not abandoned. The spy plane incident — when an American aircraft which intruded into Chinese air space and was forced to land at Hainan — was resolved after a negotiating process was put in place. The period following September spawned the worst kind of extremism and dogmatism in international relations. Moderation and conciliation took a back seat. This development has cast a dark shadow on the politics of nations. Its immediate impact was on two regions, namely the Middle East and South Asia. It is no coincidence that these areas which had already been in turmoil when the year began took a turn for the worse. In the new scheme of things it was inevitable that international politics would be destabilized and the regional power equilibrium would be disturbed. In the Middle East the al-Aqsa intifada and the blind anger it caused in Israel led by a hawkish government under Ariel Sharon continued to take a heavy toll of life, with the Palestinians being the major victims. With the breakdown of the Oslo peace process and the Bush administration’s lack of interest in putting it back on the rails, future prospects look grim indeed. By the closing months of the year, war clouds darkened the South Asian horizon as well. The 12-year uprising in Indian-occupied Kashmir, which had been compounded by militants operating from across the Line of Control from Pakistan and Afghanistan, seriously strained relations between India and Pakistan. The attempt by the two sides at Agra in July to defuse tensions was not productive and in the climate of instability created by the American war in Afghanistan, the terrorist attack on the parliament house in New Delhi in December proved to be a spark in the tinderbox. Blaming two groups operating from Pakistan for the assault, New Delhi upped the ante and a flexing of the muscles by both sides has taken them to the brink of war. There are far too many imponderables in the prevailing tense situation, the key one being the risk of a nuclear war. There is also the factor of uncertainty of American policy. As such, South Asia has emerged as the most dangerous place on earth. In this disturbing scenario of world politics, the smaller countries appear to be caught between the devil and the deep sea. It makes little sense, therefore, that some Third World states should make a bid for regional domination. For them good sense lies in trying to put aside their differences and working for peace to strengthen their hands in world affairs. But decades of mutual distrust has blinded the leadership of India and Pakistan to a point where they turn to Washington to have it pull their chestnuts out of the fire. In the fluid situation as it obtained in the closing days of 2001 this was not too wise a policy for either to adopt. Their brinkmanship seemed to be driving them to a war which would be suicidal for both. There was a worrisome aspect of the new order which emerged in 2001. The US and its G-8 partners, as well as the governments in many developing countries, proved incapable of recognizing the link between poverty, illiteracy and ill-health at one end and peace, security and terrorism at the other. In spite of the trauma of the September 11 events, they continued to be callous to the miseries of the poorest of the poor. The form globalization took and the conditionalities imposed by the funding agencies drove the poor in the developing countries towards further impoverishment. The American Congress appropriated $40 billion in three days after September 11 to fight the war against terrorism. Even the developing countries like India and Pakistan invested huge amounts in arming themselves. No one wanted to concede that less of poverty and better health and education are the best safeguard against terrorism. Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
