Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
2002: when the US ruled the roost THE Economist of London describes 2002 as a “surprisingly good year” because the “bad things” which had been expected didn’t happen. This observation underlines the wide gap between the perception of the affluent, privileged section of humanity and the impoverished, backward Third World. If Black Tuesday and its horrendous aftermath were not repeated in 2002, it doesn’t mean that the year signalled the advent of prosperity and security in the gloomy lives of the majority of humankind. If anything, the polarization between the two intensified, making the world a more insecure and unstable place to live in. The major single factor which came to determine the political, economic and social state of the world was the United States’ unchallenged assertion of its hegemony. The aftershocks of 9/11 continued to be felt throughout the outgoing year. Terrorism — true, nothing close to the attacks on the Twin Towers but as scary — raised its ugly head in places as far and wide as southern Philippines, Bali, Moscow and Mombasa, to name just a few, where the death toll was heavy. These acts were attributed to Islamic militants — the United States was quick to link them to Al Qaeda. More than the magnitude of the damage inflicted, it was the sense of insecurity that terrorism generated that had far-reaching implications. The US, which had earlier kept up the facade of observing the rule of law and the essence of diplomatic practices in all its dealings, shed its mask. It resorted to highhandedness of the most brutal kind in its own territory as well as in countries within its reach, ostensibly to nab Al Qaeda operatives. The American action had a profound impact on the world in two ways. First, it encouraged the free use of force by state-backed terrorists of other brands, such as the champions of Hindutva in the Indian state of Gujarat and the purveyors of violence in Israel under the leadership of Sharon. They could get away with their foul deeds and kill more people than elsewhere as no moral pressure was exerted to restrain them. The second effect of this approach, which was perceived as being imperialistic in style and substance, was that it caused widespread alienation among people and governments worldwide. Although opinion polls in the US showed George W. Bush’s ratings going up, in other countries there was a perceptible decline in America’s popularity. This was confirmed in the German, South Korean and Brazilian elections in which candidates who adopted a clearly left-of-centre and anti-American stance in their electioneering, such as Chancellor Schroeder, Roh Moo-hyun and Lula da Silva, romped home to an easy victory. As a result, an informal division of the world appeared to be taking place. President Bush had set the tone for it when he spoke of the “axis of evil” in his State of the Union speech in January in which he identified Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the key culprits. If the division of the world into two camps — pro-American and anti-American — didn’t actually formalize, it was basically because the lines were blurred and the overlapping of many interests prevented parties from lining up on one side or the other. More importantly, the Bush administration employed the unchallenged military might of the US to cow down other states. This was also used with great impunity to advocate the doctrine of regime change and to install ‘friendly and reliable’ governments in countries of strategic importance to the United States. The approach had already worked in Afghanistan where Hamid Karzai who had been inducted as the interim leader by the Bonn conference in the closing days of 2001 was elected president by a jirga in Kabul in June. Woe befell any leader who tried to defy the might of the sole superpower in the world. Accordingly, the US goal throughout the year was to dislodge President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and for that a war seemed imminent and inevitable. Although America, somewhat restrained by world opinion, did not rush into a unilateral attack on Iraq and took the matter to the UN, war remains a strong possibility as the year draws to a close. The hardliners in Washington have made out their case against Iraq on the grounds of its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, although no evidence of this has been found so far. The Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, was another major target of the ire of the American government but he tenaciously clung to office, despite the havoc unleashed on the Palestinians by the Israeli forces. The United States had no qualms about declaring its major goal in the Middle East to be to dislodge Mr Arafat from power. Washington also lashed out Kim Jong Il of North Korea when he let it be known that his country had a nuclear weapons programme in place in spite of its 1994 agreement with the US. It is still not clear how the US plans responding to this development. Additionally, the United States proceeded to use the economic weapon to subdue defiant governments for strategic reasons. The relentless thrust of globalization and the subservience of the IMF and the World Bank to the US diktat facilitated the American ambition of establishing its global supremacy. It gradually emerged that the basic interest of the Bush administration was in oil — be it in Iraq or Central Asia. With the president, the vice-president, the defence secretary and the national security adviser holding personal business interests in the oil industry, it was not surprising that oil was a deciding factor in American foreign policy. While world attention was focused on the global hot spots like the Middle East and South Asia as well as on the militants openly preaching and practising violence, a quiet realignment of forces began to take shape in other regions. Without openly challenging the might of the US, some powers have gradually come closer to each other during the course of the year. The animosities of yesteryear are now receding in regions which do not fall in the American sphere of influence. China and Russia are showing signs of a detente, while the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has brought Moscow and Beijing together on the same platform as four Central Asian republics. In South-East Asia, the ASEAN members are consolidating their alliance economically and politically. In Europe, the EU, which agreed to admit another 10 countries to its fold, has begun to assert an independent (with the exception of Britain) line on Iraq. If America continues to provoke the rest of the world by its arrogance, this process of regrouping of forces could escalate and alter the configuration of power in world politics in the years to come. The only factor which can neutralize this trend will be the failure of the various parties involved in regional conflicts, such as India and Pakistan, and the Palestinians and Israel, to resolve them. Although some warring parties, such as the ruling Sinhalese in Sri Lanka and the dissident Tamil Tigers are attempting to negotiate peace, others have not been as sensible. If commonsense prevails, the seemingly inexonerable thrust towards a unipolar world we witness today may yet be stalled. Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
