| February 21, 2002 | Thursday | Zilhaj 8, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
The folly of deployment
Sidestepping the problem
WASHINGTON’s controversial new policy on the kidnapping of American citizens abroad is yet another example of the disturbing unilateralist direction current US foreign policy is taking. The move comes in the wake of the kidnapping of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan last month, and represents a far more interventionist approach than ever before. According to the new policy, there will be a federal review of every overseas kidnapping of a US citizen to assess the need for intervention, including the sending in of US commandos to secure his or her release. In the past, such actions were reserved for extremely critical situations, mainly involving senior US officials or armed forces personnel. From now on, the US will feel free to land its commandos in any sovereign country for action without bothering much about the formalities of permission and so forth. This is a disturbing development that represents another step towards a world order symbolizing the will and expediencies of the sole superpower as the supreme law.
The US has, of course, resorted to such acts in the past. The most celebrated incident of this nature was the forcible capture of Panamanian President Manuel Noriega in the eighties — for him to stand trial in a US court for drug money laundering. What is disturbing, however, is the growing frequency of such unilateral action, and the arrogance with which laws and conventions governing inter-state relations are being ignored. In recent years, the US has acted unilaterally without taking the UN or international law into account on a number of occasions. The missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan following the 1993 terrorist attacks on US embassies in Dar-es-Salam and Nairobi was one such step during the Clinton administration.
Despite international criticism of such arbitrary displays of power, the situation has become worse with the induction of the Bush administration. Since 1998, this unilateralist tendency has crystallized into something of a dogma setting the pace for its actions and decisions in the international sphere. The current philosophy seems to be that US interests come first — and the world had better fall in line. A cursory look at the Bush administration’s record on a series of international treaties reflects this growing tendency to go it alone. Among the numerous victims of Washington’s disdain for international law and opinion are the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the ABM treaty and the creation of an international criminal court. Its refusal to grant prisoners captured in Afghanistan privileges under the Geneva Convention is another instance in point. Perhaps the most alarming reflection of this unilateralist tendency was President Bush’s State of the Union speech last month. Labelling Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an ‘axis of evil’, the US president held the three countries responsible for sponsoring terrorism and attempting to manufacture weapons of mass destruction.
In effect, these countries are now prime targets for future attack. The possibility of attacks against these countries has sent shock waves across the world and led to expressions of outrage by some of America’s staunchest allies in Europe. There was clearly no debate or attempt to build a consensus on the issue or seek UN permission for any punitive action. This might-is-right US approach is creating a dangerous precedent for others to imitate. Already, Israel and India are taking a cue from the US example in their respective regions. It is time the US displayed some humility and remembered that power without responsibility can be extremely dangerous. The path that the US is now swaggering along can only lead to international anarchy.
INDIA seems hell-bent on getting maximum political mileage out of its troop deployment on the border with Pakistan. Speaking at a press conference in New Delhi on Wednesday, Defence Minister George Fernandes discounted the possibility of an early pull-back until Pakistan handed over around 20 alleged terrorists demanded by India and ended “cross-border terrorism”. However, the chorus of dissent against New Delhi’s actions seems to be growing even within India with many defence analysts and retired generals questioning the prolonged deployment and the exorbitant costs associated with it. Even its potential as a vote-getter for the ruling BJP, as some critics had suggested, in the crucial state election in Uttar Pradesh seems to have backfired with exit polls suggesting a defeat for the ruling coalition.
Well into its seventh week, the deployment has begun to tell on New Delhi’s finances. According to defence experts and analysts, the build-up has already cost at least $200 million, with one retired general saying that it “was a show of force, it had its impact, but it’s over now”. The deployment has also imposed significant costs on Pakistan of around $150 million. It is ironic that this should happen in a region where hundreds of millions live in abject poverty. New Delhi has repeatedly ignored calls by the rest of the world to sit down and talk to Islamabad, which has already said a number of times that it is willing to do this “anywhere, any time”. The Indian defence minister’s assertion that Pakistan first hand over the 20 ‘wanted’ men on the list unfortunately does not help at all because Pakistan has already made its stand clear on this point. This points to India’s real intentions behind the current political and military confrontation with Pakistan. It wants to carry on with this, believing that its aim of keeping Pakistan on the defensive and under pressure is producing results, not realizing the risk that goes with it.
Pakistan has already taken several steps that the rest of the world has acknowledged as indicating a key shift in its policy vis-a-vis the so-called jihadi organizations. It is these organizations that India itself accuses of being the driving force behind ‘cross-border terrorism’. This makes it clear that Pakistan’s actions are well intended and not a ploy. India should end this folly of deployment, which, if unduly prolonged, may prove counter-productive in the long run.
YET again the Karachi Zoo authorities have gone ahead and banned the entry of women during the Eid holidays. Apparently, this has been happening every year for the past decade, the rationale being that since the zoo will be crowded by hordes of men — many of them, it is presumed, will ogle and stare — it would be much better if the women were asked to stay home. Hardly a convincing ground. Why should women be made to suffer if some members of the opposite sex tend to forget norms of conduct in public places? And why should families who might wish to visit the zoo during the Eid holidays be inconvenienced for no fault of their own?
Taking the logic of the zoo authorities a step further, women should be banned from all busy shopping centres because these places too are thronged by hordes of dubious characters. The Sindh government should perhaps take note of this and realize that such absurd measures really have no place in the twentyfirst century.