2003: off to a chilling start
By A. R. Siddiqi
THERE is little cause and even less urge to wish each other the ritual ‘Happy New Year’. For even as it starts, the midnight chimes ringing in the New Year sound more like the malfunctioning alarm clocks rudely going on a blink to wake the sound sleeper up and sour his dream of a bright new year morning. The crackers exploding outside on the high city streets and by-lanes sound more like live gunfire than the crack of merry fireworks.
The undying rhythm of ‘Auld Lang Syne’, a unique fusion of a hearty welcome and a befitting, emotionally-charged welfare, acquires an elegiac undertone to make the merry-makers pause a while and think of the uncertain, unpredictable life ahead. All the bad news from the four corners of the world flapping around one’s ears like the winged monsters released from Pandora’s box.
The American century under President George Bush, the illustrious son of an illustrious father, is off to a chilling start. Bush senior, the initiator and the ‘victor’ of the Operation Desert Storm of 1990-1991, is going to get it done again, through his son only with less justification and with a strong, lingering after-taste of failure on more than one count, despite an absolute military victory. First, the real enemy, Saddam Hussein, stays in the saddle firm as ever, astride his high horse of personal arrogance backed by his people under his rule, no matter, how tyrannical. Saddam has given the Iraqis some sort of a semblance of self-respect and dignity as a nation regardless of the horrendous cost paid in terms of collective security. Some 17 million Iraqis, mainly women and children either died or unspeakably suffered on account of the economic sanctions imposed by the world body. Saddam’s Iraq could, however, boast of a fair measure of prosperity and socialist orientation even one without social justice and full freedom from strong oppressive neighbours like a monarchical Iran under the late Shah and the clerical Wilayat Faqhi (Rule of the Juris- consult) under Ayatullah Khomeini.
Second, Saddam is no longer the aggressor and predator in respect of his immediate smaller neighbours like Kuwait as in 1990. America, despite its self-chosen role as an international busy-body and a bully, did have some alibi for invading the Iraqi occupiers in Kuwait and throw them out from there. The senior Bush’s campaign against Iraq under a UN Security Council mandate and the active support of the Arab world, enjoyed a fair measure of moral and military justification. He did manage to restore the Kuwait Amir to his ancestral throne and destroyed much of Saddam’s war machine including the dreaded Republican guards.
He got away with a tumble of laurels added to his commander-in-chief’s cap, at little cost to his own exchequer and hardly any damage to his military machine. The Arab world, Saudi Arabia and Gulf states in particular picked up the tab for the Desert Storm. Saudi Arabia alone is said to have paid some 12-13 billion dollars. President George Bush neither has the quasi moral clout of his father nor the support of the world community, even the European, his half brothers and the Arabs as a body remain more united than before, in their opposition to Bush’s impending demarche.
What would be the fall-out or the ‘blow back’ (a term ingeniously coined by the CIA) to signify the unintended consequence of a major demarche like the invasion of one country by another, nobody can exactly calculate. What would be the role of the world community and of the United Nations after the Anglo- US invasion of Iraq? As for the UN Council resolution 1441, authorising the US military action against Iraq in case of the latter’s failure to declare and destroy its deadly arsenals of the Weapons of Mass Destructions (WMDs) it remains, for all practical purposes, a unilateral US initiative. Fellow members support it under duress for the absolute absence of a free choice.
The UN Council after what has been happening in Palestine for years and what is almost certainly going to happen in Iraq has been reduced virtually to the status of the diplomatic long arms of America. It stands ready to catch any element a country or a people by the scruff of their neck daring to raise a dissenting voice against the US strategic perceptions and supreme national (international) interest Globolization in practice signifies little more than America’s imperial overreach without the benign aspect of the British imperialism.
Paul Kennedy, the (elaborated author of the global bestseller, Rise and Fall of Great Powers, asks: ‘...whether a military campaign against Baghdad is an easy romp or a hard slugging match may not be vital to the future of American power. Who can doubt that the US military would conquer Iraq and impose a sort of a mandated rule (ala MacArthur’s in Japan 1945-46), as the more hawkish American strategists are suggesting. No, the real problem is not his immediate display of military might....
‘The real challenges are neither military in nature nor are they pressing, which is why the Bush presidency appears to be ignoring them. Most probably at its peril...’.
America’s status as the reigning global hegemony in the post- Iraq strategic scenario is little more than the proverbial millstone or the yoke around its own neck too heavy to carry or too tight to shed. The US for a while at least, be left alone and isolated in the world too strong to resist or grapple with and too awesome to make up to.
Will then America be in a state of recession (‘Recessional’, to use a Kiplinesque expression) implying a country in retreat, a people withdrawing from the scene.
That’s too a large question and must wait over a period — may be a number of decades or a whole century — for an answer. To attempt an answer in this point of time would be stretching one’s imagination into the thick fog of the future with little or no visibility. What could be seen and guessed right now is that the third year of the so-called American century promises little happiness and prosperity at least, for much the third world. What with the branded ‘Axis of Evil’ comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea; Afghanistan the elusive Al Qaeda and global terrorism are going to engage the American hard-liners up to their neck.
As for the South Asia, Pakistan may eventually end up with some sort of a betrayal in preference to America’s budding affair with India.

