The countries of South Asia have supported the ‘war against terrorism’. But it has now become clear to them that the US agenda is not confined to punishing Al Qaeda alone
THE horrific events of 9/11 have turned the world topsy turvy. Terrorism is a major problem, in fact a global one. But it also provided the United States an opportunity to show off its military domination to the world. Perhaps it is too early to encompass all its implications. Moreover, at the moment, we are concerned with its impact, the trends it has unleashed or tendencies it has discouraged, and the prospects it has opened in South Asia.
Newly independent countries, including those of South Asia, joined in the grief of the US and supported the war against the perceived Al Qaeda perpetrators of the crime. But soon, it was clear that the US agenda was not confined to punishing only Al Qaeda. Governments all over the world, whether the US or any other country, use the sentiments of their people as a resource to further whatever long-term agenda they have. Some people feel that the ‘war on terrorism’ will be the defining paradigm in the struggle for global order for many years, or even decades. Terrorism is an attractive war cry, it is an emotion-charged symbol and can be used for some time to come. But the real issues will be political, and sometimes geopolitical.
Terrorism is an undefined term. Violence in the earlier era was considered legitimate as it was used during wars for independence or for separatist movements. But states were congealed in the ’50s and ’60s of the 20th century (with few exceptions such as Palestine) and the travails of the independence effort was over. The norm now is non-interference in each other’s affairs. Delegitimized violence by aggrieved factions persisted, including suicidal attacks, which may have some justification in Palestine. Violence without clear objectives, except destabilization and inspiring fear, was given the name of terrorism.
Noam Chomsky asks: “What do we mean by terrorism? Second, what is the proper response to the crime? Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antogenists, then we must agree — in fact strenuously insist — that the principle to apply to us as well (as them).” When President Bush declares that all those opposing the alliance of the willing are terrorists, he is ignoring this principle.
After invading Afghanistan in October 2002, the US occupied Iraq which neither had any objectionable weapons of mass destruction nor was it in any way linked with the Al Qaeda network. The US has assumed the right to ‘regime change’ in any country it so desires. It is not expected to behave like a bull in a china shop. American military power is certainly unmatched, mostly because European states opted out of the armaments race, believing that the US will act responsibly. They left the policing of the world and maintaining world order to the Americans.
On the contrary, America has its own grandiose strategy. It not only invaded Iraq, it pinpointed the ‘axis of evil’ of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Addressing the Americans, Bhikhu Parekh observes: “While exhorting the rest of the world to respect international law and treaties, you flout them at will. You refused to ratify the Kyoto Treaty on climate change, the International Criminal Court and the ban on anti-personnel land mines and biological weapons, and to pay your dues to the United Nations. You, unilaterally decided to break the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia, and you walked out of the Durban conference on racism when its agreed protocol did not go your way.”
Michael Coy points out: “The US cannot be authorized to act as prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner in its own case and still claim the legitimacy of international legality.”
Bhiku Parekh warns the US: “If you are not careful, you risk being branded an arrogant bully who could only relate to the world on its own terms.”
The US easily swallowed Iraq, but is finding it hard to digest it. The five prevailing characteristics of Iraq are: Iraq is in total chaos, there is no security, severe shortage of basic necessities, rising unemployment and mounting resistance against occupation. North Korea and Iran have escaped the wrath of the US. Iran has specially played its cards extremely well. It admitted its mistakes to the watch-dog inspectors, accepted the scoldings, thus escaped sanctions. Iran is a part of the troubled West Asia. Iran not only saved itself, it defused an international flashpoint which a crises in Iran could lead to. Along with cordial relations with it neighbours, it cultivated friendship with UK, France and Germany. It recognized the US-sponsored government of Iraq.
Iran is a developing democracy, but developing late, it exhibits certain novel features. It is surprisingly attuned to the globalized world. Specially in the tricky field of nationalism and internationalism, loyalty to state and loyalty to humanity, patriotism and cosmopatriotism. Iran has exhibited many new glimpses. “Cosmopatriotism combines love of humanity with love of country.... National patriotism is premised on a world order that is decisively defined by autonomous sovereign states, each dependent for survival and prosperity on the successful exercise of its unconditional dependence on self-help.... National patriotism does not perceive any dangers flowing from its own excesses of power, whereas comsopatriotism seeks to substitute the security of the community for the security associated with military capabilities,” Richard Ealk.
With the evolution of nation states in Europe, loyalty was transferred to the nation and nationalism was born. The psyche of ‘my nation, right or wrong’ developed to absurd limits. It was at its height during the cold war. The Soviets boasted that they could hit a pinhead in Washington from Moscow and the Americans were sure to hit a peanut in the Kremlin. The crazy nihilists in the two capitals gleefully declared that they could blast the globe five times over (probably once the globe and four times its troubled ghost).
While cold warriors were happily plotting global destruction from Moscow or Washington or the stars, leaders of newly-independent countries were visualizing how to overcome their backwardness, makeup for time lost, develop democracy, economy, security and the social sectors. While this dream may have been that of all newly-independent countries, it was pursued with gusto by the non-aligned ones. Others depended on the western umbrella. Fortunately, in South Asia, only one state, Pakistan, opted to join military alliances.
The broad consensus among the non-aligned was as follows:
- they will not join either of the military blocs;
- they will have trade and other relations with all countries, irrespective of the regime there;
- they will respect the sovereignty of all countries and follow the policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states.
The new states did not have very rational boundaries. The situation in Asia was not so absurd and arbitrary as in Africa. But the Asian states accepted the legacy of history, and, at least the non-aligned ones decided not to reopen the Pandora’s box of redemarcation of state boundaries.
South Asia was partitioned in 1947 on communal lines and the two states of India and Pakistan came into existence. The people of South Asia took 23 years (1970) to learn after much bitterness and bloodletting that while faith is sacrosent, patriotism is based on geography and not religious belief. Bangladesh was not a product of rebellion. It came into existence on the basis of the popular vote in a general election, and upheld the subcontinental tradition initiated by the British that the masses are the final arbiters of their destiny. It finally disproved the mistaken view that religion makes nations.
India has the same boundaries today as in 1947-48. There have been tensions and insurgences, specially in the north-eastern and north-western ends of the country, but India has been able to hold its own. However, it did not covet ethnic groups outside of India. A sizable population of Tamils is in Sri Lanka (18 per cent). They are struggling for autonomy/ secession for decades, but India accepts them as Sri Lankans. It tried to mediate between them and the Sinhalese until a Tamil militant assassinated Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on May 22, 1991. Having burnt its fingers, India now maintains its distance. These days the Norwegians are mediating between the Tamils and Sinhalese.
In the Simla Agreement (1972), India agreed to meet Pakistan to have ‘a final settlement on Jammu and Kashmir’. But working out a final settlement does not mean swapping territories. Such settlements are always based on the status quo. Fortunately, the war against terrorism delegitimized all sorts of terrorism, including cross-border terrorism, creating an environment in which normal, mutually advantageous relations can develop between the two countries. The process has started at long last.
Benazir Bhutto has been pleading for decades to make the borders in Kashmir soft. Nawaz Sharif’s Lahore Declaration of 1999 has been in limbo for four years. One may hope that the process will develop, if not evenly, by fits and starts. There is not much of a chance for reverse, specially due to the regional and international scenario. The states of the subcontinent need mutual dependence in the period of globalization.
Finance Minister, Shaukat Aziz, in a recent seminar in Karachi, termed the globalization process as an “opportunity.” At the same seminar, Prof Raja Mohan of Jawaharlal University, New Delhi, pointed out that “one of its (globalization’s) consequences has been the prospect of ending the economic partition of the subcontinent, which in essence was a single market until 1947.”
The birth of Bangladesh in 1970-71 challenged the partition of the country on the basis of faith. Globalization holds the prospect of doing away with the partition of the unified subcontinental market. Trends in South Asia have taken a favourable turn. India is by and large a democracy. In Bangladesh, democracy is being consolidated. Pakistan also has a limping democracy. If the peace process makes headway, civil society in Pakistan will be strengthened.
Peace in the subcontinent will result in enhanced meaningful relations with neighbouring countries such as China, Central Asia, Afghanistan and Iran. It is sad to note that nuclearization with persist until, as SAARC has demanded, non-proliferation is not seen in tandem with dismantling of nuclear arsenals. But it is yet to be seen whether the leadership of India and Pakistan are able to rise up to the occasion.
Beyond the subcontinent, there is the wide world which, at the moment, is not being governed by the United Nations. The US is making efforts to impose Pax Americano in place of the August United Nations. A country may be strong, but the united will of the world is always stronger. The UN may not be as effective as one would wish it to be, but mankind has not yet developed an alternate. Moreover, the UN is the conscience of humanity. Its disapproval makes an act illegitimate.
It is hoped that the subcontinent and its states, practising cosmopatriotism, will play a role in the rejuvenation of the disturbed world order.
