Author: Chinmaya R. Gharekhan
Publication: The Hindu
Date: September 28, 2001
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.)
