Raising the anti-terror stakes

FOR THE U.S., the ringing chorus by the forum for Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) against terrorism in ``all forms and manifestations'' is music indeed. In a different sense though, the United States must reckon with the APEC's collective failure to openly voice solidarity with Washington as regards its ongoing ``counter- terror'' strikes against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Also relevant to any discussion of the actual diplomatic gains by the U.S. at the latest APEC summit in Shanghai is the forum's formulation that the United Nations should ``play a major role'' in combating terrorism comprehensively. Arguably, these are the outward signs of the APEC's hesitation even if it does not connote an absolute refusal to endorse America's present military action. On balance, however, there seems to be something that the U.S. can usefully cite from the subtle sub-text of the forum's overall suggestion about a major role for the global organisation. The U.S.-friendly view from the Asia-Pacific rim is that ``the importance of all relevant U.N. resolutions'' be taken into account in the battle against international terror. Indeed, the legal and moral springboard for America's current military expedition was the resolution that the U.N. Security Council recently adopted to outline a robust policy of facing the terrorist challenges in the wake of last month's outrage against humanity. If seen in this nuanced framework, Washington's claim about ``universal support'' for its anti-terror sentiments is not really illusory as might be indicated by the APEC's eloquent silence on the incremental American military involvement in Afghanistan.

The APEC's diffused perspective on America's efforts to lead an international anti-terror coalition is not of the same salience to Washington as the view of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is. As an acknowledged military alliance, the U.S.-centric NATO has by and large expressed its collective willingness to throw its weight behind Washington in its anti- terror ``campaign''. Now, the APEC, a quintessential regional grouping that was explicitly formed to address the global economic challenges on a sustainable basis, seems to have played a proactive role in addressing the U.S.' concerns about the financial sponsorship of international terrorism. In this manner, the APEC entity, whose centre of gravity extends beyond the U.S. economy, may have raised the stakes of the international community in its battle against terrorism on the financial front in particular. The Asia-Pacific rim is dotted with the world's two premier economies, those of the U.S. and Japan, besides several emerging and interactive ones. So, the APEC can make a positive difference to the ``campaign'' against international terror by translating some of its latest intentions into a reality. Spelt out in this category are some critical APEC objectives - blocking the international transfers of terror- spinning financial assets, strengthening energy security, ensuring the safety of the global transportation networks among other aims.

No less important to the global anti-terror ambience are the bilateral meetings that the U.S. President, Mr. George W. Bush, held with his Chinese and Russian counterparts, Mr. Jiang Zemin and Mr. Vladimir Putin respectively, on the sidelines of the APEC summit. Mr. Jiang advocated a role for the U.N. in this ``campaign'', while Mr. Putin downplayed Mr. Bush's apprehensions that the international terrorists might manage to lay their hands on intercontinental ballistic missiles and activate them. Yet, among all the APEC leaders, it was Mr. Putin who came closest to Mr. Bush in articulating the terrorist threats. With Mr. Bush advocating a missile defence system by showing the terrorist challenge as a new strategic compulsion, Mr. Putin agreed to look at futurist ways of defending global stability only after evaluating the long-term viability of the existing frameworks. A serious Russo-American strategic dialogue seems to be beginning in this new context.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Party, Government and the gap
Next     : The prospects in Afghanistan