Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Year of action and reaction THE outgoing year was a bizarre year of extremes — of action and reaction. It was the year when the most horrendous war — the American attack on Iraq — in contemporary history was brought to television screens by ‘embedded’ reporters and cameramen. But this was also the year which saw the rise of a peace movement that made history though it couldn’t preempt the war in Iraq which suffered indescribable havoc. The war was, so President Bush and Prime Minister Blair claimed, designed to destroy weapons of mass destruction which Saddam Hussein had supposedly stocked in his arsenal. Unsurprisingly, they were never found. It was also said that the war was meant to bring about a regime change. That it did. But more significant was the response it evoked. While the war clouds were building up millions of activists took to the streets all over the world to protest against the impending attack. In Iraq itself, the people who were supposed to be ‘liberated’ by the US turned against the occupying forces and guerrilla fighters took to attacking the outsiders soon after the war was officially declared closed. While Iraq was emerging as the new hotspot of the world, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict proved to be another key area which cast its long shadow on world politics. Of long standing, this dispute has kept the Middle East in a state of great turmoil since 1948 when Israel was carved out in Palestinian territory by driving out the indigenous people from their homes. It continues to destabilize the region. The second intifada which began two years ago is a reaction to Israel’s stepped up land-grabbing activities and militancy which ended the Oslo peace process. A new roadmap to peace was devised but failed to break the impasse because Israel with unconditional American backing refused to yield on any key issue. Worse still, in 2003 Israel blatantly demonstrated its bellicosity by keeping up its siege of Ramallah where the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was trapped in his headquarters for over a year. His dilemma was unenviable. On the one hand, he faced pressure from Islamist militant groups who stepped up their suicide bombings, taking a heavy toll of Israeli lives throughout the year. On the other, he was constantly pressed to check the militancy of his compatriots — which was an impossible task in the absence of any reciprocity from the Israeli side to his policy of moderation. It resulted in a change of prime ministers ostensibly to make the Palestinian leadership more acceptable to the Israelis and their American patrons. At the other end of the spectrum a nascent peace process was emerging in South Asia in the closing months of the year. After lurching to the brink of war twice in two years, India and Pakistan finally came round to exploring the prospects for peace. Whether they will succeed in ending their confrontation time alone will tell because the two countries have undertaken on many previous occasions similar ventures which fizzled out. So far the omens have been good. They have agreed to normalize their relations by restoring rail, air, and road links and their prime ministers will be meeting in Islamabad where the twelfth Saarc summit will be held in January. If New Delhi and Islamabad manage to bury the hatchet the climate in the subcontinent could change radically for the better and the impact of this development would be felt in global politics. This game of war and peace in Iraq, Palestine and South Asia, along with Afghanistan which remained in a state of low-intensity conflict, clearly established a number of truths which are now changing the paradigms of international relations in the 21st century. First, it is clear that military strength more than political power, public opinion and economic compulsions is shaping the course of events in the modern day. America’s aggression against Iraq proved to be a highly unpopular act and triggered off a violent reaction against President George W. Bush. Yet he managed to defy world opinion and get away with his doctrine which seeks to establish America’s global hegemony. This is terrifying, and if this trend continues the year 2003 might prove to be the turning point in world politics. It confirmed the phenomenon of a superpower with superior weapons and missiles imposing its might on other states which lacked the capacity to challenge it. But this might have a positive dimension also. Where it suited the US, it used its power and influence to force smaller squabbling states to make peace which was also in the latter’s own interest. The problem was that this rule was not universally applied. The second truth to emerge from the events of the year was that power unjustly used can trigger a negative reaction — a blowback — that can be equally harmful for the Americans. The struggle in Iraq and Palestine in 2003 to free these lands from foreign aggression and occupation clearly establishes that the unjust use of military power will evoke a reaction in the form of unconventional warfare, which is insidious, protracted and highly destabilizing. However it may be described — terrorism is the commonly used term — it will emerge as a powerful force which recognizes no boundaries. In 2003, terrorism globalized faster than anything else. With terrorists from different states and of different nationalities joining hands to fight for a common cause it was becoming increasingly difficult for armies and security forces raised by national governments to counter the power of the terrorists operating with flexible ease. The rules of the game appeared to be changing. And as it always happens in a period of transition, the change had the effect of destabilizing the world. The American drive for power had another implication. It virtually ended the age of multilateralism when states with similar strategic, political and economic interests had cooperated in world affairs. The split between America and some of its Nato allies, notably France and Germany, on the Iraqi war signified the American thrust towards going it alone without enlisting the cooperation and support of other major states which mattered. This impression was reinforced by the treatment meted out to the United Nations which was sidelined during the Iraq war, as it had been in Afghanistan in 2001. Few observers believed that this trend could last indefinitely as the events of the year indicated. Europe rallied to consolidate itself as a major player on the world stage as it prepared for its expansion and closer integration. Although the EU summit failed to agree on its new constitution, it managed to set up a separate defence planning unit. The year also saw the continued growth of China which in partnership with India stalled the Cancun meeting of the WTO to show its clout. Given the fact that Europe and China have the potential to emerge as economic giants, it is the economy the US should be most worried about. But the Bush administration hardly showed any concern on this matter as the dollar continued to slide. The euro, which was worth 86 cents two years ago, had inched up to an exchange rate of 1.23 dollars at the end of 2003 and America’s current account deficit stood at a whopping $550 billion. Indiscriminate use of military force will hardly help America shore up its economy while the security challenges it faces from the terrorists around the world will hurt it even more. Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
