Author: Prem Shankar Jha
Publication: Outlook
Date: September 24, 2001
The tragedy that has struck America
is too poignant for words. As I write, the toll is rising. When the dust
settles, we're likely to find that anywhere between 10,000 and 50,000 people
have had their lives cut short. In various parts of the world, there are
people who openly express their satisfaction that the mighty, presumptive
ruler of the world has been struck a crippling blow where it is most vulnerable-in
its image of itself. There are many more who regret the huge loss of life
but feel the US brought the tragedy onto itself by involving itself in
too many places, too often, and not always on the side of justice.
These views are grievously wrong.
If the attack was on the US' power and capacity to strong-arm the world,
that capacity remains undented while the will behind it may actually have
hardened. If it was on the US as a symbol of an unjust order, that world
order remains and, given the remorseless logic of globalisation, cannot
but remain unaffected. What has changed forever is the lives of those killed
or wounded, and that of the many more thousands who loved them.
There are profound lessons to be
learned from the tragedy. The growth of world terrorism has been co-terminous
with globalisation and there is an obvious connection between the two.
But the time for reflection, and for remedial action, will come later.
Today, the US needs to cope with the immediate fallout of the terrorist
attack, both on its people and its position in the post-Cold War world
order. What needs to be done at home is well understood and has been taken
in hand in an exemplary fashion. Where confusion and conflict remain is
over how the US should react to the attack if, as seems likely, it was
masterminded from abroad.
Understandably, there has been a
call for revenge from some Americans and this demand is likely to grow
stronger as the full horror of the tragedy sinks in. President George W.
Bush has already promised that 'those who harboured (the terrorists) will
not be spared'. The word 'harbour' casts the net far wider than words like
'plotted', 'conspired' or 'masterminded'. It includes not only those actually
involved in the plot but also the larger population that shares the sentiments
of the suicide bombers but was not only not involved in but might have
disapproved of what was planned. Bush would do well to keep this distinction
in mind. The former need to be hunted out and punished and the whole world
will help do so. But to take revenge on the latter will only compound the
crime the terrorists committed.
Restraining those calling for blood
will take a great act of statesmanship. But America needs to remember that
its position as the hegemonistic power in the new international order requires
it to exercise a far higher degree of restraint than is expected of smaller
countries. The global order of the future will only be stable if its leader
is seen to be judicious in exercising its military and other powers. That
is a difficult lesson the US is still in the process of learning. The learning
will now have to be completed in a hurry in the most emotionally trying
of circumstances.
If the US has been the first victim
of a new level of sophistication in global terrorism, India could well
be the next. With the Israelis having virtually ruled out the involvement
of Hamas and Al Jihad, the Palestinian organisations that have been sending
suicide bombers into Israel, suspicion has focused on Osama bin Laden and
his Al Qaeda.But Al Qaeda is a key element in a coalescing network of fundamentalist
organisations that regard themselves as an army of Islam. Some others are
the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, the Al-Badr, the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), and since
recently, the Jaish-e-Mohammed. All of these are focused obsessively upon
India and have repeatedly warned they intend to go for high-profile targets
in Delhi.
The existence of a loose global
network of terrorist organisations was acknowledged by British intelligence
on May 27, 1999, hours after the start of the Kargil war, when it let The
Telegraph and The Independent know that such a network was probably behind
the intrusion. It also pointed out that the network was coordinated by
Pakistan's isi. Indian analysts have reason to suspect that the coordinator
was none other than the former hardline chief of Pakistan army staff, Gen
Muhammad Aziz, currently the corps commander in Lahore.
The spectacular success of the attack
on the US can't but infuse a new zeal into those targeting Kashmir and
India. If Al Qaeda is indeed behind it, its links with the "Army of Islam"
makes it virtually certain that the LeT and Jaish will soon have access
to the technology and resources used in the US. India would do well to
take precautions against a nightmare eventuality in which one of these
manages to "steal" a nuclear weapon from a Pakistani stockpile and get
it into a plane operating in, or bound for, Indian skies.
Since hijacking an airliner is the
key to the success of the plan, and since the terrorists seem to have solved
the problem of getting lethal weapons past metal detectors, the first thing
New Delhi must do is to reinforce the body searches that are mandatory
in theory but often perfunctory in practice at most Indian airports. A
second, even more important need is to ensure that access is completely
denied to the cockpit at all times during a flight. This would need some
remodelling and enlargement of the cockpit and very probably an armour-plating
of the partition between it and the rest of the plane. Indeed, had such
steps been taken when hijackings first began, scores of planes would have
been spared this fate, the World Trade towers would still have been standing,
and several thousand of America's-and India's-best and brightest would
have been alive today. It speaks volumes for the power of profit that no
airline has even considered such changes, for fear of losing a few paying
seats.
