Author: Editorial
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: November 16, 2001
Russian President Vladimir Putin's
frank admission, before American journalists in a recent press conference
in Moscow, that the Taliban in Afghanistan and international terrorism
in general were products of Cold War rivalry, is refreshing. His remarks
are a first step towards recognising the systemic origins of the current
world order, without acknowledging which there cannot be any meaningful
efforts at crafting a better one.
Unfortunately so far there has not
been a similar confession by the United States or its close NATO allies.
If indeed the global coalition against terrorism is to hold in the long
term, a threadbare recognition of past mistakes is imperative. Mr Putin
did mention in the same press conference: "Thank God, we are today capable
of avoiding mistakes of this kind. And it is in this (context) that the
international anti-terrorist coalition is precious". His assuring words
not withstanding, there is no glossing over the truth that even today,
the handling of the war in Afghanistan and the as yet incipient post-Taliban
order, is underscored not so much by alacrity about rooting out the forces
that support terror, but by US efforts to retain control within the tight
corridor of a backdoor zero sum game.
At best, one can assume the Americans
are confused and wish to play it slow. They want to neutralise the Taliban,
but do not wish to ensure the same vis-à-vis Pakistan's deep-rooted
strategic foothold in Afghanistan. They are unwilling to commit their own
foot soldiers to the frontline and are happy to have the Northern Alliance
fighters do the job for them. Yet they do not wish to have them gain too
much territory too soon, which may lead to the Alliance developing an impetus
that outpaces the US initiative. After all it is common knowledge that
the Alliance has no love lost for either Pakistan, or the US, the two closest
partners in the region in the strikes against Afghanistan. The above scenario
is the charitable one. But there could be more to the position the US is
adopting. It is entirely possible that it is not confusion, but a deliberate
strategy that is directing US policy. Having directly borne the brunt of
the trouble emanating from the region, and having spent the tax-payer's
money on carpet bombing a non "target rich" country, the US would like
to "make amends" by moving in edge ways within the power centres that are
likely to emerge, and possibly extend its sway to new playing fields like
Kashmir.
By pursuing a back door agenda-that
of playing favourites between the factional centres of power in the region-while
professing to further a self-engendered global mission against terror,
the US is replaying just those board games that Mr Putin has identified
as being the cause of the current crisis. India would do well, as Prime
Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee did during his recent visits to Russia, the
US and the UK, to be circumspect about the ongoing political manoeuvring
in the region. We need to go by the straight and the narrow and not experiment
with emergent theories, for instance on Kashmir. As Mr Vajpayee made amply
clear at every stop, Kashmir is at the core of India's nationhood and not
open to negotiations. With the US out shopping for fresh toe-holds, this
is the only sustainable approach for India to adopt in its own interest,
and that of the world's.
