The Bush doctrine

UNFOLDING a sweeping blueprint for global supremacy, US President George W. Bush has made it clear that the US will not allow any rival power to challenge its military might, will launch pre-emptive military strikes against security threats even when they are not imminent, and will not shrink from “compelling” others to fall in line.

In a report to Congress on September 20, he vowed to wage military, economic and ideological battles around the world to destroy terrorist threats and promote US values.

In a most comprehensive presentation to date of the doctrine that drives his global policy, Mr. Bush warns that the US forces “will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing or equalling the power of the United States.”

The report to Congress reveals a US bid to have the NATO alliance create a new rapid-reacting force capable of deployment in a crisis zone on a week’s notice. The US is expected to suggest at the forthcoming NATO meeting in Poland the formation of a 20,000-strong unit, including ground troops, AWACS, naval forces, chemical-biological defences and an intelligence component.

The most significant part of the report, from the point of view of the Islamic world, is the one that suggests that a change of regime in Iraq will complement a drive for change in predominantly Muslim countries. “The war on terrorism is not a clash of civilizations”, the report says. “It does, however, reveal the clash inside a civilization, a battle for the future of the Muslim world,” in which “America must excel.”

The three most important features of what has been aptly described as the Bush doctrine are: a “distinctly American internationalism” based on uncontested military superiority; unilateralism as against multilateralism; and preemptive strikes against hostile regimes or those that sponsor terror. Those who believe that the Bush administration is obsessed only with the threat from Iraq should read the document more carefully to have their illusions removed.

The Bush doctrine calls for “a war of ideas” against terrorism to make it as unacceptable as slavery, piracy and genocide. It contains sections on promoting human rights and reforming foreign aid. Though it lauds the replacement of military regimes by democratic rule in Latin America and Africa, it significantly fails to mention current US support for some military rulers. The closest it comes to a mea culpa is to observe: “Our own history is a long struggle to live up to our ideals.”

The US commitment to open global markets is prominently mentioned in the report, but without any hint of dismantling two major obstacles to freer trade: US protectionist policies in relation to some commodities and substantial US agricultural subsidies.

The philosophy behind the Bush doctrine is not new, what is new is the willingness to state it so bluntly and openly. Also, unilateral military action to neutralize a perceived threat is not unknown in recent history. In 1981, Israel destroyed a nuclear reactor in Iraq. The US hit targets in Libya and Sudan on the pretext that they were linked to terrorism. It is the new concept of “distinctly American internationalism” that characterizes the Bush doctrine because it brazenly justifies US military hegemony and unilateral military intervention in countries considered hostile by the US.

President Bush seems to be even more convinced that international laws are unreliable and the path to national security lies in US military might. That is why protecting US military supremacy has become a core US policy. That also explains his willingness to act alone against Iraq. Under the Bush doctrine, the United Nations is an obstacle to overcome rather than an instrument to use.

To be fair to Mr. Bush, “regime change” is just a new phrase for an old American practice of intervening in the affairs of other countries to change governments or protect the existing ones. Even a partial list of such US interventions across the globe in recent history, would include such countries as Cuba (“Remember the Maine” and the “Bay of Pigs”), Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, Korea, Lebanon, Vietnam, Iraq and more recently Afghanistan. What we need to remember is that most of these American interventions took place when the US did not enjoy unrivalled superpower status. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, that status has become universally accepted. Two factors seem to be responsible for the aggressive unilateralist posture of the Bush doctrine: a sense of post-September 11 domestic vulnerability and post-Afghanistan military might.

The Bush doctrine unveils a unilateralist macho phase of US foreign policy which will now follow a “with us or against us” approach on all international security issues. It puts the real or imagined enemies of the United States as well as its allies on notice. Any lack of support for core US policy will earn you charges of “anti-Americanism” and “more difficult relations.”

The first test case of the Bush doctrine is going to be Iraq. Any opposition to striking at Iraq will not go unpunished. Already there are warning signals for Germany that any opposition to military action against Iraq may lead to a US review of its military commitment to Europe. Those countries that have been opposed to unilateral US action against Iraq will have either to mute their criticism or cooperate. Britain and Australia have already indicated their full support. France may not have signed up for combat as yet but will be cooperative in the days to come. Now that the elections are over in Germany, its government will also soft-pedal its opposition. Russia will be bought off and China is expected to follow a prudent policy and may remain silent.

Pakistan will have to seriously ponder the far-reaching implications of the Bush doctrine as it challenges some of its old assumptions about how to deal with Washington. The philosophy of pre-emptive strike, a core strategy of the Bush doctrine, has awakened fears that others will use it as a justification for unilateral military action of their own.

The Bush document seeks to remove such fears by asserting: “The United States will not use force in all cases to pre-empt emerging threats, nor should nations use pre-emption as a pretext for aggression.” Pakistan should be careful not to cross the US, but to take these words too seriously will be nothing but self-deception.

Russia has already threatened to attack neighbouring Georgia to destroy Chechen rebel camps on the pretext of “combating terrorism.” What can prevent India from taking inspiration from the Bush doctrine to invade Azad Kashmir to destroy “terrorist camps” or launch pre-emptive military strikes against “security threats” from Pakistan?

Much depends on how the United States chooses to manage its role in what has become a very unsettled world. Unfortunately, in the year since the September 11 tragedy struck America, the United States seems to have lost sight of its perceived role in changing the world for the better. The world will anxiously watch in the coming weeks and months whether the Bush document will make the world not just safer but better, as it claims, or it will be used only to perpetuate its global supremacy.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.

E-mail: afzaalmahmood@yahoo.com

Modiland versus Gandhiland: LETTER FROM NEW DELHI

THE name Gujarat sounds almost like a cliche. Long use has also worn out the expression “the land of Mahatma Gandhi.” But there is nothing phoney about it. However distant the Gujaratis may go from what he practised and preached, they would still be from the land of Mahatma Gandhi and measured by the standards the Father of the Nation had set.

This is their pride as well as shame. The outsiders expect too much from them and do not understand how the state has been taken over by consumerism and jingoism.

About a week before Gandhi’s birth anniversary on October 2, I went back to Ahmedabad. I wanted to see how “normal” was the state after the orgy of bloodshed and crime some seven months before (1,100 people killed and 1.5 lakh ousted from homes). More than that, I wanted to know if the pang of guilt had begun to melt the heart of any part of the Gujarati community, whether there was any soul-searching.

Regretfully, I found little evidence of that except among the Jains. There is no repentance. What sounded strange at times was the loud-voiced defence as if many were feeling embarrassed for all that had happened and were making an effort to cover up. Some even admitted this in private. But I am sure their number would dwindle drastically after the Swaminarayan Temple incident on September 24. But the attack by the militants should not come as a surprise to Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani as the intelligence bureau had warned that such an incident could happen.

There can be two reasons for the attack. One, the Pakistani- based militants may have done it to foul up the atmosphere in the state, which was beginning to improve. Another reason could be that it was meant as an “act of revenge” for the Gujarat carnage. Something like this happened in Mumbai in 1993 after a spate of communal riots following the demolition of the Babri masjid. And to cap it all, chief minister Narendra Modi is trying his best to see that normality does not return.

Even the intelligence bureau has reported to Advani that Modi’s speeches could inflame “communal passions” between Hindus and Muslims. But the home ministry has hardly taken any notice of it. It is the most despicable attack, purposely carried out in Advani’s constituency. The Swaminarayan Temple incident is bound to help the BJP, which has been steadily losing support because of the economic hardships the state is facing.

In fact, the strong reaction to the carnage worldwide has touched the Gujarati intelligentsia to the quick. Businessmen, lawyers and technocrats were keen to convey that they were not the type of people the country had come to believe them to be. “We have been pushed to a situation in which we have no choice except to support even a person like Modi,” said an editor of a leading Gujarati daily. “You ignore him. The Gujaratis would take no time to drop him.”

Politics in Gujarat now revolves round Modi. He sees to it that it stays that way. He brings in Muslims and Pakistan in his speeches purposely so as to play upon the feelings of Hindus. No political party, not even the Congress, has tried to propagate or practise the secular ethos. The Muslims are included in different electoral strategies, not in developmental targets. Even Shankarsinh Vaghela, Modi’s main opponent, would like to play the soft saffron card but has been strictly told by the Congress high command not to do so.

Ahmedabad is normal in the sense that buses ply, people move around and stores are reasonably crowded. But you can feel that something is missing from the place: the semblance of togetherness. The city is too polarized and too divided. Even liberal Muslims are moving to the Muslim localities for security reasons. There is some sort of economic boycott going on. For example, the upper middle class Hindus have stopped sending their vehicles to the Muslim-owned garages.

The urban areas are more contaminated than the rural areas. Some Muslims cannot return to their homes because Hindus do not want them. Or they want them on conditions which the Muslims find too humiliating. Some such 5,000 Muslims are still in camps. Others have moved to their relations and friends. Many have just left the state altogether. The entire Chilya community (momin) which had a chain of small, cheap hotels in the state have migrated to Hyderabad. The Islamic Relief Committee has all the figures, locality-wise, and other details of the migration.

“They had no choice,” many Muslims told me. The government has closed the camps, without making any alternative arrangements. Even the compensation has not been paid to more than 20 per cent of the victims. And what has been paid is a pittance — from Rs 50 to Rs 500. The insurance companies have not settled any claim involving a large amount. The prime minister’s assistance of Rs 150 crore has not been utilized properly, according to official sources. But the Muslims complain that a sizable portion of the money has gone to the pockets of politicians and bureaucrats.

Muslims regret their loss. “We have only 4.8 per cent of Gujarat’s business,” some of them told me. At a rough guess, the state has already lost more than Rs 10,000 crore in the aftermath of the carnage. There is further loss of 80 per cent daily in the sales tax and octroi collections. Whatever brave posture it may adopt, the BJP high command is worried over the economic straits in which the state has plunged. Politically, the Muslims do not count much for the BJP. On its own, the community can bag two seats and influence another four to five in a 188- member house.

The Sangh parivar has been busy destroying the country’s secular base for a long time. It has now succeeded in demolishing the secular ethos that Gandhi and Sardar Patel had built up. One can see the debris of destruction. There is no social contact between the two communities. For two decades Gujarat has been following the Gandhian philosophy.

The manner in which Gujarat was forging ahead economically showed that the state had realized that religion alone could not deliver the goods. Economic empowerment was also necessary. It looked as if it had found a way to reconcile the two. But then came the BJP. It played the Hindu card and sponsored communal riots to polarize society. The party saw to it that the police would not interfere to enforce law and order.

The BJP and Modi seem to believe that by sustaining the divide between Hindus and Muslims they can win the coming state elections. The Sangh parivar is trying to arrange the gaurav yatras till the polls so as to keep Hindu chauvinism on a high note. When I visited Ahmedabad, 55 per cent of the 182 seats looked like going to the BJP. The recent incident may increase the number by 40 seats. But it is possible that the land of Gandhi may wake up to Gandhi’s message after partition.

At a time of bitter religious tension, Gandhi’s prayer meetings became a defiant symbol of tolerance and secular approach. The military rulers in Islamabad and the fundamentalists in India and Pakistan are determined to destroy India’s secular credentials. The people should accept the challenge by following Gandhi’s message which was moral, humanist and cosmopolitan.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in New Delhi.

Corruption: causes and cure

CORRUPTION, has become a cause of serious concern. This is a menace that can never be eliminated completely from society. It is always inversely proportional to the rule of law. Corruption includes graft, bribery and acquisition of wealth by illegal means.

A man is born with two expectations, due respect and satisfaction of needs and just wants. A civilized society takes care of these expectations. Such a society is based on the rule of law, and the rule of law admits no exception. Equality as human being is a fundamental principle. Every citizen, thus, is entitled to equal respect as human being, and gets it in a civilized society. Where there is the rule of law, every citizen gets his needs through the same process.

Where the rule of law is absent, the vacuum is filled by the rule of nuisance value. The rights, privileges and respect in such a society depend upon how much you can browbeat a man or woman. One may acquire an official position by virtue of which one is able to cause harm to others or to give them favour and advantage.

Police department is an obvious example. You go wearing the police uniform and you get respect and your demands are fulfilled according to your rank. You can create the same effect through a show of physical force. You carry weapons and you get respect as well as your requirements.

Those who cannot adopt these two courses are left with the third one — acquisition of the power of money. In a perverted society everything can be purchased if one has enough money.

Another cause of growing corruption in our society is the slogan to raise the standard of living. This slogan is being raised by our rulers since the creation of the country. We started running after the slogan, with endeavours to raise the standard of living for which we need money. Easy money can be earned only through unlawful means.

Inanity of the legal system is also responsible for the growth of corruption. It is said that law is blind, but our legal system perhaps assumes that the judge is blind. The system relies upon the ears of a judge but does not trust his eyes. A judge may order hanging of a person about whom witnesses tell him that the said person committed a murder, but he cannot take cognizance if he sees a person committing a murder.

If during the proceedings in a court an official demands and accepts bribe in the presence of a judges, the latter cannot punish him for accepting illegal gratification. The Law requires them to report the matter to the FIA or the anti-corruption police having jurisdiction. The said police official is supposed to send up the accused before the special judge having jurisdiction for trial.

Under the law, the said special judge has powers to punish the accused, but if his own clerk accepts bribe in his presence, he cannot try him. Of course disciplinary action or that of contempt of court may be taken against such delinquent official. But even the judges of the apex court cannot punish him for the offence of bribery having been committed in their presence.

The legal system must have an in-built mechanism to get itself implemented according to its letter and spirit. Our legal system lacks such a mechanism.

The authorities responsible for initiating a legislation have also contributed to the growth of corruption by their inaction. Article 212 of the Constitution provides for administrative courts and tribunals. Paragraph (a) of clause (1) of this Article provides for a tribunal in respect of service matters and such tribunals were constituted through law in 1973. The authorities, however, never cared to initiate a law for a tribunal provided for in paragraph (b) of this clause.

This para provides for a tribunal to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to claims arriving from tortuous acts of the government, or any person in the service of Pakistan, or of any local or other authority empowered by law to levy any taxes or cess and any servant of such authority acting in discharge of his duties as such servant. This tribunal with simplified procedure could be helpful in reducing corruption substantially. But a law to create it has never been initiated.

The writer is a former judge of Sindh High Court.

Iraq: allies reluctant to back Bush

PRESIDENT George Bush has left the world community in no doubt that he would carry his so-called crusade against terror to Iraq with or without the authorization of the Security Council.

With the exception of Britain, all the veto-wielding members of the Security Council see no reason for punitive action against Iraq, particularly after its unconditional acceptance of the UN demand for the return of weapons inspectors who were withdrawn in the aftermath of the American air offensive against Iraq in 1998. The Russian foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, saw no need for any UN resolution now that Baghdad had assured the Council of full compliance.

Earlier, when Bush was raving and ranting against the Baathist government, Moscow had threatened to veto any draft resolution calling for military action against Baghdad. The French president, Jack Chirac, strongly opposed any unilateral action against Iraq, insisting that any such action should be based on a consensus among the Big Five of the Security Council.

Clearly, this legal mechanism does not suit the war-mongering American president, who has been disappointed by China, which, too, joined the anti-war chorus. Germany, which made substantial contribution to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 1991, has refused to support another invasion at this time and that too without any hard evidence of Baghdad’s nuclear culpability.

In the Gulf-Middle East region, which is going to be the battlefield should the US launch a war, America’s allies — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, etc — have opposed any attack on Iraq. Ironically, soon after the US decision to shift the headquarters of its Central Command from Florida to Qatar, the Sheikhdom refused to allow the US to use its airbase for attack on Iraq while Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Iran warned George Bush against any aggression on Iraq. Later, however, because of intense pressure, Riyadh agreed to permit the use of its territory only if the Security Council approved of military action against Iraq.

Turkey from whose Injerlic base the US warplanes carry on routine bombardment of Iraq on the pretext of enforcing the so- called no-fly zone is strongly opposed to the ouster of Saddam Hussein by the US military intervention. Ankara fears that in the event of the dismemberment of Iraq, the ethnic Kurds of its south-eastern provinces may break away to join their Iraqi kinsmen. Another American ally, Pakistan, has expressed its opposition to attack on Iraq since that would inflame the entire Muslim population.

The prevailing strategic environment is extremely unfavourable for any US action against Iraq. Only Britain and Israel stand by the US on this. If George Bush goes it alone, he will be following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler who attacked Poland in early September 1939. All the world stood against him except fascist Italy and militarist Japan. At that time Nazi Germany, like US today, was the most powerful state while Poland, like Iraq, was a very weak state. Germany overran and occupied Poland but that temporary victory was the beginning of the eventual defeat of Hitler.

The US president’s tirade against the Iraqi leader did not impress the UN members. On the contrary, it aroused suspicions about the motive of such action. The world statesmen assembled there knew where the shoe was pinching. On the eve of the Johannesburg summit in early September, the French president lambasted the Bush administration for satisfying the “ravenous appetite” of the industrial barons of America — a policy that threatened the climate of planet earth. In case of Iraq, it is the insatiable appetite of the US oil business for that country’s 112 billion barrels of oil reserves.

Saddam Hussein has kept the American oil companies out of Iraq’s oil and gas fields while the Russian, French, Chinese, Italian, Vietnamese and Algerian governments have either reached oil agreements with Iraq or are in the process of doing so. It is no secret that George Bush and Dick Cheney are in oil business. They are using state power to seize the lucrative oil concessions in furtherance of establishing American monopoly over Iraq’s oil resources.

Instead of negotiating a deal with Saddam Hussein like Russia, France, China, Italy and others, the Bush-Cheney axis wants to remove Saddam Hussein and replace him with a compliant ruler like General Fazlollah Zahidi who replaced Dr Mosadeg in Iran in 1953-54. In Iran at that time the CIA successfully staged a military coup to overthrow Dr Mosadeg. In Iraq also Washington used the same covert tactics but could not topple Saddam Hussein. Hence the frantic efforts for a regime change in Iraq.

To justify blatant aggression against a member state of the UN, George Bush denounced the Baathist government as an outlaw because it had flouted the Security Council resolution on weapons inspection. But what about Israel which has violated more than forty resolutions of the UN? What about India? Another indictment against Iraq is that it possesses or is likely to acquire nuclear or biological weapons. But Israel already possesses 200 nuclear bombs, thanks to French and US assistance.

Bush complained to the UN General Assembly that Iraq had stockpiles of XV, mustard and other chemical agents. The UN weapons inspectors have inspected 400 sites so far and destroyed all objectionable material. They could continue the search since Iraq has lifted the ban on their re-entry.

The Security Council resolution regarding the disarmament of Iraq also says that it is a step towards elimination of weapons of mass destruction in the whole of the Middle East. It is about time the UN weapons inspectors started looking for similar weapons in Israel as well.

May one venture to ask George Bush: how much nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and fissile material the US has in its arsenal? Has the US complied with the UN resolutions about general and complete disarmament? America continues to occupy Diego Garcia and Guantanamo and Britain Falklands in flagrant violation of the UN resolutions. Saddam Hussein is not the only violator of UN resolutions.

War’s impact on the US economy

THE showdown with Iraq is prompting understandable worries about its effects on the economy. The possibility of disruption to oil shipments from the Persian Gulf has pushed energy prices up, with Saddam Hussein’s promise to allow in weapons inspectors undoing only part of the “fear premium.”

Lawrence Lindsey, President Bush’s economic adviser, has suggested that a war might cost between $100 billion and $200 billion — this at a time when the federal budget is already overloaded. To people who oppose the war, it is tempting to cite these economic strains as additional reasons to avoid it. But this would be to miss a larger point. The real economic questions raised by the administration’s foreign policy concern the longer term, not the one-time shock to oil prices or the budget.

The size of these shocks is in any case disputed. A war would presumably halt oil shipments from Iraq, but sanctions have restricted these to an average last year of about 2.4 million barrels per day; Saudi Arabia, which maintains spare capacity of some 3 million barrels, could make up that shortfall single-handedly.

Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, a former Saudi oil minister, has suggested that a war might provoke Saddam Hussein to attack the oil fields in his country or Kuwait, sending prices up from their current level of about $30 per barrel to the $100 level. But it’s unlikely that the Iraqi dictator has the ability to cause more than pockets of damage to the oil infrastructure of his neighbours. Even in the extraordinary event that he knocked out three-quarters of the Middle East’s output, industrialized countries have enough oil in their strategic reserves to make good that size shortfall for 30 days, and to replace a smaller shortfall for months — buying time to repair the damaged infrastructure.

The fiscal shock from war could turn out to be significant, but it should not tip the scales in the debate over the war’s advisability. For one thing, Lindsey’s guesstimates are at the high end; the Pentagon has come up with lower numbers.

For another, the cost might be shared by U.S. allies, provided that the Bush administration sticks to its course of building its case against Iraq in the court of world opinion. Most important, the economic logic of an Iraq conflict depends on the larger question of whether Saddam poses a security threat. If you see no threat, then obviously the war makes no sense from any point of view.

But if you think the Iraqi dictator might one day unleash weapons of mass destruction on American or allied targets, removing him at the cost even of $200 billion is well worthwhile.

The administration has therefore been right to play down the economic side of the Iraq decision. But it has failed to face up to the economic consequences of its longer-term struggle against terrorism. The burden of a bigger defence budget, an ambitious homeland security agenda and expanded commitments in areas such as intelligence and foreign aid imposes a clear strain on the budget; unlike the one-time cost of fighting an Iraq war, it represents new expenses that stretch out indefinitely.

The administration ought to accept that this burden requires rethinking its promised but not yet implemented tax cuts. Instead it pretends that the nation can afford to fight terrorism and cut taxes at the same time; it is even proposing a new wave of cuts on top of the huge package it secured from Congress last year. —The Washington Post