Author: Jasjit Singh
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: February 4, 2002
Introduction: Democracies
are natural allies in the war against terror. Surely regimes that embraced
and legitimised the use of terror do not become less evil just because
they start co-operating with Washington?
Nealy 11 years ago after the end
of a war fought by the United States to restore Kuwait's independence the
then US president, George Bush, had declared a new international order
that signified the end of the bipolarity in evidence for nearly half a
century.
Now another US president has spelt
out his vision after another successful war in Asia, but one which started
with an attack on the heart of the United States. This one celebrated a
victory against forces that were created by its long-term ally and our
western neighbour. Meanwhile, international terrorism has claimed over
30,000 lives in Punjab between 1984-93, and nearly 28,000 lives in Jammu
and Kashmir, not to speak of half a million people who have been rendered
as refugees within their own country since July 31, 1988.
The wounds will take a long time
to heal and the war against terrorism is far from won, even though its
core today stands altered in fundamental ways. A moderate intra-Afghan
interim government, committed to reversing the Talibanisation of Afghanistan,
is well on its way although the process of winning the future is not going
to be easy or short. President Bush has firmly stated that while the war
in Afghanistan is over, the real war against terror is only just beginning.
''We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror,'' he affirmed
in his recent State of the Union address, in language reminiscent of Mahatma
Gandhi's beliefs. India could not agree with him more. In the process,
he has outlined a new paradigm which would, hopefully, redefine a new international
order. So what does the Bush vision portend for the international community
and us?
September 11, 2001, altered the
world in many ways whose contours are as yet not very clear mainly because
they are still to be shaped. But some indications of their outline are
perceptible. First, by attacking the core of the symbols and substance
of US power, the attackers demonstrated the vulnerability of the sole superpower
and, therefore, that of every state and society in the modern age. This
was only a magnified demonstration of the change in armed conflict that
many of us have been cautioning about.
The world obviously cannot be unipolar
if that pole itself is vulnerable to hijacked airliners and new ways of
killing, even of innocents, on a mass scale. The bulk of the international
community would expect the US to lead by ''defending liberty and justice''
as Bush has promised. This can only be done on a durable basis if the leader,
in line with democratic principles and practice, takes into account the
beliefs, perceptions and needs of the constituents that it wishes to lead.
The test of the Bush Doctrine will be the degree of democratisation that
it will infuse in international relations and economic interaction.
Secondly, President Bush has talked
of the US working with Russia, China and India ''in ways we never have
before to achieve peace and prosperity''. The three major powers were not
allies of the US and, in fact, were perceived not so long ago as the enemy
or a difficult country. And one can recall the tensions American leadership
had with what was described as Nehru's obstinacy in emphasising peace in
preference to security. But one hopes that the US would not see its relationship
with the three Asian giants, Russia, China, India, only as ''a moment of
opportunity'' to be dissipated after immediate pressures and priorities
start to recede. President Bush has touched on a critical point in the
emerging paradigm: the evolving polycentric international order, where
Japan and the European Union are the other key players, with a number of
centres of power and capabilities, non-polarised, co-operative and at peace
with other states and societies. But the emerging world, as defined by
Bush, cannot be a world that is polarised. It is in this context that his
references to Iran, Iraq and others as an ''axis of evil'' have to be seen.
In conceptual terms, there can be no place for polarisation and containment
where one seeks a just world where evil is to be overcome with good. Few
countries of the world would describe the regimes in these countries as
''evil'' although most would hope to see their evolution towards more liberal
democratic societies.
This is where Bush's basic contradiction
comes in. The question must be asked: in what way is the military leadership
of Pakistan that created and installed the Taliban in Kabul not a bigger
evil than the Taliban itself? Surely regimes that embraced and legitimised
the use of terror as an extension of their ideology, foreign policy, security
strategy and politics - even within their own society - do not become less
evil just because they start co-operating with Washington for their own
ends? And the army in Pakistan constitutes just that even though it promised
to change after September 11.
One cannot help recalling General
Aslam Beg as the army chief of Pakistan lauding Saddam Hussein for his
''strategic defiance'' when he refused to vacate aggression in Kuwait at
a time when Pakistan was a close ally of the US and the world was trying
to roll back aggression against a sovereign state. But Beg is an honourable
man; and so are the generals ruling Pakistan all honourable men. Bush is
all praise for General Musharraf and he appears to have come a long way
since he launched unprovoked aggression with his elite military forces
across recognised frontiers in 1999. Should not that then be the model
for dealing with other regimes suspected of promoting terrorism and transforming
them? As is being done in Pakistan, we should focus on the infection and
not just the body.
And that leads us to the question
of Indo-US relations in the emerging scenario. Great progress has been
made in the past two decades, especially since the early 1990s in this
area. But that only emphasises the potential ahead. Bush appears to put
the use of force up front in dealing with national security. Most Indians
would be uncomfortable with this approach, as much as the New York Times
is. September 11 demonstrated that even the most powerful need the co-operation
of the weakest, like the Northern Alliance minus Masood was. This is intrinsic
to the very nature of the challenges facing humanity.
The war against terrorism is virtually
the Third World War; and democracies are natural allies in this war. This
is the opportunity to strengthen future relations based on deeper understanding
of each other.
