|
Policy on Terror needs
reconsideration
Swaraj
Singh
After the September 11, 2001
terrorist attacks, President Bush declared that to fight and curb
terrorism was his top priority. After almost 2 years, if we review
the situation, then one factor becomes evident: the fight against
terrorism is far from over.
Actually, terrorism
seems to be increasing. The recent attack on the UN office in
Baghdad was the worst in the history of the UN. The killing of
Ayatollah Al Hakim, an important American ally in Najaf, is a severe
blow to the efforts of establishing a pro-American government in
Iraq. Not only American soldiers are coming under attack, but the
infrastructure such as oil pipes, water lines, and power supply
sources are also being attacked. Iraqi collaborators are also being
attacked. In Afghanistan, the attacks by combined elements of
Taliban, Al Qaeda operatives, and the forces of Gulabadin Hikmatyar
are not only increasing in frequency but are also becoming bolder
and more dangerous. In one of the attacks, hundreds of fighters in
many armored vehicles attacked and occupied a regional police
headquarters. Another convoy carrying high police officers was
ambushed and all of the officers were killed. This attack occurred
just south of Kabul while President Karzai was viewing an
independence day parade. Similarly, the recent suicide bomb attack
on a bus in Jerusalem shows how fragile is peace between the
Israelis and the Palestinians. All these terrorist attacks show how
difficult it is to win peace, certainly much harder than winning
war. The terrorist attacks in Mumbai seem to be in retaliation for
antiMuslim riots in Gujrat. This situation may lead to an endless
vicious cycle of revenge.
What are the
reasons of not winning the war against terrorism? One reason is
obvious. This war cannot be won by the use of force alone. We have
to understand the political, economic, cultural, and religious
factors which can be exploited by the terrorists. Perceptions are
very important. They may or may not be true but still have to be
taken into consideration. Doubts continue to linger about the real
motives of starting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some people still
feel that oil played a significant role in these wars. Some even
think oil also played a role in breaking the Soviet Union.
The Central Asian
republics happen to have very large oil deposits but their oil has
to be brought to the Arabian Sea. The oil pipes carrying oil from
Central Asia have to pass through Afghanistan to reach the Arabian
Sea. Iraq has the second largest oil deposits in the world. Iraq was
ruled by Saddam Hussein, who represented the Sunni Arabs, a minority
which faced a hostile Shiite majority in the South and equally
hostile Kurds in the North. Therefore, it was easy to overthrow him
and take control of Iraqi oil. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, these
presuppositions and calculations did not prove very credible. It
soon became obvious that Afghanistan is too unstable to even think
of passing oil pipes through the country. As far as Iraq is
concerned, both Shiites in the South and Kurds in the North did not
prove very effective allies against Saddam Hussein. Shiites could
not join a superpower which is perceived as antiMuslim. Turkey made
Kurds ineffective. Turkey is concerned that if the Kurds break away
from Iraq and form a separate country, then the Kurds in Turkey may
also demand to join that independent country, therefore it can lead
to the destabilization of Turkey. This was also felt that India can
join the war against terrorism, particularly when there is some
antiMuslim and antiChina sentiment in India which can be exploited
for prompting India to join the antiterrorist alliance. But there
are many people in India who feel uncomfortable about an alliance
with America and Israel which can be perceived as an antiMuslim and
antiChina alliance. They feel that this will be against the
fundamental interests of India since India is an Asian country
belonging to the third world; an alliance against the leading forces
of Asia and the third world can create great problems for India.
Some Indians feel that the best option for India is to form an
alliance with Russia and China because India can then help in
strengthening the neutral forces. Such a role is more compatible
with India’s image as well as suits more its ground realities. The
war against terrorism is more likely to succeed if it tries to
address the various issues associated with this problem and a
serious attempt is made to form a consensus against terrorism. A
unilateralist approach to terrorism is unlikely to work.
|
