Return of realpolitik

By C. Raja Mohan

ALL IS changed, changed utterly, the poet W.B. Yeats had written. The brief post-Cold War decade of liberal illusions about the nature of international politics is behind us. We have been returned to the messy and melancholic politics of another great war that is upon us. That in many ways is one of the principal outcomes of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the U.S.

Among the first casualties of the Black Tuesday in the U.S. two weeks ago is the notion that history is dead. At the end of the Cold War, the American writer, Mr. Francis Fukuyama, had written that history - in the sense of a clash and movement of ideas - has come to an end. Arguing that capitalism and liberal democracy had triumphed, Mr. Fukuyama had declared that all that remained was to fix the mundane problems that may arise in the new steady state the world had moved into.

The theory was indeed dismissed, and few gave it credence even in the U.S. Nevertheless the Clinton Administration, which had the opportunity to shape a new world, acted on the assumption that history had ended. Basking in American triumphalism, Mr. Bill Clinton had believed that foreign policy was only a question of putting in place norms and rules and enforcing them through economic sanctions and humanitarian interventions. That world was shattered on September 11. Politics, and realpolitik, is back with a bang in international relations.

The dramatic attacks on the heartland of the U.S., a great power with capacities unparalleled in history, demonstrated that people continue to be driven by big ideas, right or wrong. The pursuit of these ideas will affect the entire world, including India in a major way. Clearly there is a lot of political passion out there to plan and execute one of the most spectacular terrorist onslaughts the world has ever seen. The attacks on New York and Washington were conceived as a deliberate political act, not as a random event.

Does it then vindicate the other grand theory - clash of civilisations - that competed with the notion of end of history? Despite the slip of the tongue from Mr. George W. Bush last week that the current war is a crusade against international terrorism, it would be accurate to assert that there is no support for the idea in the American policy establishment.

Given America's deep interests - economic and political - within the Muslim world, the U.S. has in recent years consciously sought to proclaim at every step that its opposition to terrorism does not imply any hostility towards Islam. But the idea of a clash of civilisations has a strong appeal among the extremist tendencies in the Islamic world. For many of those groups, including those affiliated with the much-vaunted Osama bin Laden, a central assumption is the notion of irreconcilable contradiction between the West and Islam. Another core belief is that until the Islamic world is rid of alien influences from the West, it is impossible to regenerate their societies.

To be sure, the idea of an ineluctable conflict with the West is not limited to extremists in the Islamic world. It is part of the ideological baggage of our own Hindutva forces. This line of thought has a strong lineage in many non-Western societies and is part of the struggle to modernise and come to terms with the West. Rejection of the West has often been reinforced by nationalism and anti-imperialism as well as nativism and xenophobia.

The sense of an irreconcilable contradiction with the West has, however, begun to flourish in West Asia thanks to the volatile political situation in the region, a deepening sense of alienation, the accumulation of profound grievances, and the failures of the local political elites of all stripes. These frustrations are likely to drive international terrorists and their supporters for a long time. The political disaffection in West Asia is also likely to colour the responses of this part of the world to the current American war against terrorism. While everyone acknowledges the importance of addressing these root causes in a political manner, it will be a long while before the war for the soul of the Islamic world can be won.

The American focus will be on the interim goals, despite the declared desire to eliminate terrorism - root and branch. The American policy has not surprisingly emphasised the importance of vacating the immediate security threats to the U.S. from international terrorism. Having identified an enemy, elusive that it may be, and declared an extended war, the U.S. has had no option but put all other foreign policy objectives on the back burner.

Last week, Mr. Bush asked the U.S. Congress for blanket authority to waive all restrictions imposed in recent years on American military assistance and cooperation with countries in the name of a whole range of motherhood issues - human rights, democracy and non-proliferation. For, the U.S. needs allies in its new war against terrorism, and Mr. Bush wants the freedom to reach out to any nation, if he believes cooperation with it is critical for the pursuit of immediate American aims.

Nothing illustrates the return of realpolitik to the American calculus better than the rush to revive relations with its estranged ally, Pakistan. Every single punitive measure and restriction imposed against Pakistan over the years will soon be lifted in the urgent American quest to mobilise the support of the Pakistani military in its efforts to defeat the perpetrators of the September 11 tragedy.

For India, the revival of the U.S. Pakistani relationship is real and disconcerting. It has come at a moment when Indo-U.S. relations appeared to be cruising along towards a consummation. But it would be unwise for India to let the current disappointment at the return of Pakistan to the affections of the U.S. drive its foreign policy towards a furtive framework obsessed with the immediate relative gains of Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

It would be unrealistic of India to expect that the convergence of interests with the U.S. on international terrorism will deliver a complete alignment of the future paths of the two nations. No international coalition, however noble and urgent the cause may be, can hope to create such total identity. Beneath the broad common aims, differences among the coalition partners on tactics and sequencing are natural. And as any war proceeds and the context begins to alter, the motivations and interests of different coalition partners too begin to change.

Even the most justified war is a messy business and involves short-term compromises that are not always principled. The war has just begun and there is a long way to go. Many surprises lie ahead. India's own aim must be to do its best to sustain the international coalition, while minimising the negative impact of immediate imperatives of the leading partners.

While India faces a complex situation that needs sophisticated handling, there should be no underestimation of the new opportunities for it. There is no question that the battle against international terrorism, that it had to fight on its own all these years, has now been joined by the international community. Even if the U.S. walks only half the distance with India in the war against terrorism, it is of some value. Morever, while international cooperation is necessary and useful in combating international terrorism, it cannot be a substitute for an internal effort.

External pressure on Pakistan, particularly from the U.S., is welcome in encouraging it to adopt a different national course. But New Delhi cannot rely solely on American policy to change the dynamics of the internal situation either in Pakistan or in Jammu and Kashmir. India can put the latest international developments to good use only if it is capable of initiating creative policies towards Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Muddying a quagmire
Next     : The creation called Osama