Relating to the new paradigm

By Chinmaya R. Gharekhan

THE EVENTS since September 11 have conclusively established America's credentials as the complete superpower, with unchallenged, and unprecedented, supremacy not just in military terms but also in diplomatic, political, economic and technological fields. Sure, the strikes against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have exposed the vulnerability of the United States to terrorist attacks, but they do not take anything away from its preeminence in the world. The parade of world leaders to Washington to pledge support to the U.S. President, Mr. George W. Bush, is an eloquent testimony to America's supremacy in world affairs. Mr. George Bush Sr. had also put together a coalition 11 years ago to reverse Saddam Hussein's illegal occupation of Kuwait, but his son is having a far easier time forging an international coalition to fight Osama bin Laden. Nations of the world are vying with one another in their enthusiasm to cooperate with Washington.

What we are witnessing today is the effortless display of America's clout in the world. It is in the very nature of the strong and the powerful to expect others to seek favour with them, to be paid court to. They take it as the normal order of things when the weak, or less strong, attempt to please them in ways that they believe would please the strong. The strong do not necessarily feel grateful for such behaviour, though they might express a word or two of appreciation. On the other hand, if the others do not offer unconditional support, the strong do not take it kindly or lightly. The U.S. Commerce Secretary is reported to have threatened economic sanctions against those countries which do not cooperate with it in the fight against terrorism.

The international community has to unite against international terrorism. But this imperative has existed since long before the horrifying events of September 11. Some of us in the foreign service, representing India in different disarmament forums in the 1980s and 1990s, when India genuinely believed in and campaigned for nuclear disarmament, used to say that it might take a nuclear strike, even if an accidental one, against one of the nuclear weapon states for them to take the nuclear menace seriously. It certainly has taken terrorist strikes against the mightiest nation on earth for it and for the international community as a whole to take the terrorist menace seriously. No one should have any illusion; we would never have witnessed this kind of reaction if similar attacks had taken place against any other country.

This is not to suggest that it was wrong for India to offer unstinted and unconditional support to Washington to fight international terrorism though one could discuss the merits of the timing and content of some of the early statements. Indeed, we or any other country for that matter had no choice in the matter. It helped, of course, that we in India have been at the receiving end of international terrorism for more than a dozen years, thus making it the most natural thing for us to do. But while the Government has to deny, at least in public, having expectations of American understanding and support in our own fight against cross border terrorism originating from and sustained by Pakistan, our American friends ought to, and certainly do know that the people of this country expected and still expect no less. Indeed, this was the talk of the town in Delhi in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11. No doubt, there were, and perhaps still are, similar expectations in other countries which have been victims of terrorism such as Sri Lanka, Indonesia, the Philippines, Georgia, Russia as well as Israel and the Palestinian Authority. But we would do well to inject a sense of realism in our calculations. This is particularly true of India, because the simple fact is that Pakistan is infinitely more relevant to what CNN, so honestly, describes as America's new war.

It is not that the U.S. loves India less, but that it needs Pakistan more. Hence, Pakistan's offer of logistic and other facilities is much more meaningful for Mr. Bush than India's, leaving aside Gen. Pervez Musharraf's domestic challenges. Even granting that Gen. Musharraf had no real choice in the matter, there is no question but that it was not at all easy for him to take the decision that he did. We are disappointed, and the people in the street are even hurt, that Mr. Bush should applaud Gen. Musharraf's address to his nation on September 19 and find it `bold', when he ought to have known that we would find it retrograde and anti-India. Mr. Bush even thought that Gen. Musharraf's speech might offer an opportunity to restart the dialogue between the subcontinental neighbours.

It is still a bit early to predict with precision what will happen in the coming days. For one, it remains to be seen whether Osama bin Laden will oblige his hosts by voluntarily leaving his sanctuary for an as yet unknown destination. For another, America wants him handed over to `responsible authorities'. And there is the overwhelming compulsion for Mr. Bush to respond to his people's longing for retribution. Nearly all experts are convinced that it would be suicidal for the U.S. to get involved in a ground war in Afghanistan. It would be emotionally difficult for the American people to accept that the most powerful armed forces in the history of humankind cannot go into the most backward nation in the world, destroy the terrorist infrastructure and get out in good time, without suffering too many casualties.

The Americans would feel the urge to do something for Pakistan in return for its help in the hour of their need, especially when it was not at all easy for the General to do so. The least that could have happened was the lifting of economic sanctions from which India has also benefited. Pakistan will receive other payoffs. It might get a package from the IMF and the World Bank to make it easier for it to deal with its enormous debt burden. It will certainly not be subjected to any public, and perhaps even private pressure to stop support for the terrorists operating from PoK. Pakistan can be expected to play its cards well, just as India would have done in similar circumstances.

It has been rightly emphasised that terrorism cannot be eliminated until the underlying root causes are dealt with effectively. This is another way of saying that terrorism will never be permanently eliminated, because while some terrorism does have identifiable causes - such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - others are much more esoteric in nature. It is ironic and immensely sad that it takes a Saddam Hussein or an Osama bin Laden for the U.S. to reengage actively in the Israeli- Palestinian situation. If an Osama has a fundamental quarrel with the American, and with most of the world's, including India's, way of life, then no amount of anti-terrorism action will eradicate it completely. This does not in any way detract from the need for concerted international action.

We in India should behave in a mature and responsible way, befitting a wise democracy that we claim to be. We might get disappointed with a particular American statement or reaction. We must not overreact, either positively or negatively, as is our wont. We must realise that other countries act in a way that is believed by them to help further their national interests. They do not necessarily take into account the consequences their actions might have on other countries.

This is particularly true of big powers. We need good relations with the U.S. We must, of course, conduct our foreign relations with dignity and self- respect. Just as God helps those who help themselves, super powers respect those who respect themselves.

(The writer is a former Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations and U.N. Special Coordinator in Gaza.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Medical milieu
Next     : Transparency in arms purchases