|
Meeting
emerging security challenges
Kanwal
Sibal
International
terrorism poses a grave challenge both to India and the United
States. We have been facing it for many years, but it was considered
our problem, a product of the unresolved India-Pakistan
confrontation. Those behind it were not seen as a threat to the USA
or the West and early signals that this insouciance might be
misplaced were ignored. The dramatic events of September 11 drove
home to the US that those forces which did not want India to live
did not want the US to live either. These are the products of the
madrassas, of a warped world view, of grievances against the course
of history, against the forces of modernity, against democracy,
pluralism and the right to choose, with an exaggerated sense of
their own strength, as if perverse convictions fired by religious
zealotry are enough to achieve any goal. While the wounds inflicted
by terrorism on India did not stir the world, the world got stirred
by September 11. Terrorism has grown to become one of the greatest
challenges to democratic societies and international stability. From
being a footnote in the security concerns and foreign policy
priorities of the world, it has become a key purpose of our
collective endeavour today, and instead of being treated principally
as a crime and law enforcement issue it has become one of global
war.
This war cannot be won completely and durably if short term
political calculations come into play and there is equivocation
about partners as well as adversaries. In the global war against
terrorism there is no room for double standards, of distinction
between terrorism that can be tolerated and one that cannot, of
terrorism directed against the West and that directed against the
others, of the former being untarnished evil and the latter
requiring resolution of its root causes. International terrorism,
the product of a particular mindset, of a certain religious
ideology, of deep rooted feelings of moral and historical
superiority, of a certain infrastructure built around madrassas and
mosques and a network of financing rendered more complex by the role
of charitable institutions. The epicenter of terrorism cannot be the
epic centre of the fight against it. Those who have one foot in the
terrorist camp cannot have both feet in the combat against it. The
institutions that nourish terrorism cannot be reliable instruments
to eliminate it. The leader of a country whose right hand commits
terrorist acts against India and the left hand cooperates against
the Taliban and Al Qaeda, one part of whose discourse is a rallying
call in favour of terrorism against India and the other rallies
against those who target the West, whose promises have no value
because he has no value for them, cannot be a reliable partner in
the combat against terrorism. You cannot with the one hand water
poisonous weeds and with the other spray weed-killers.
In a speech to the US Congress in September 2000, Prime Minister
Vajpayee had spoken about terrorism’s growth, nourished by
religious extremism and fundamentalism into an instrument of state
policy for some, into a force that had become a threat to the values
of democracy, pluralism, liberty and progress, and into a danger
against which distance offered no insulation.
Many challenges still lie ahead in defeating the forces of terror.
In the past seventeen months, we have made considerable progress in
combating international terrorism by creating new levels of
international cooperation, by crafting new multilateral standards
for national behaviour and responsibility, by disrupting financial
networks, by interdicting terrorists and by dismantling their bases
in Afghanistan. But much more needs to be done still.
US has no better partner than India in combating fundamentalist
terrorism and the security challenges it poses. We are both targets.
The epicenter of terrorism is in our region and we have a common
stake in eliminating it. Both of us have rejoiced in the downfall of
the Taliban and we support the government of President Karzai in
Afghanistan. Both of us favour stability in Central Asia and the
elimination of the fundamentalist terrorist threat to the region. We
are cooperating bilaterally at the level of our governments and our
agencies in dealing with this menace. India has initiated a
Comprehensive Convention against International Terrorism in the UN,
which the US supports. Our common experience and sufferings make us
natural partners. As democracies, the challenges we face are
particularly acute. Free and open societies like ours have to find
answers to inadequacies of existing law enforcement and crime
prevention mechanism dealing with terrorism, while preserving their
high standards of rule of law, judicial processes and transparency.
We still have to develop new paradigms of international cooperation
on actionable intelligence, on which our success depends so much. We
have to develop new technologies, systems and institutions for
protection of our people.
We have to deal with terrorism pro-actively. We have to address the
problem of all that which inspires, draws and indoctrinates
countless young men to the path of violence. We must develop a
consensus on how to deal with sovereign states, whose policies,
social ethos and institutions breed the mindset that sustains
international terrorism. We have to systematically target terrorist
financial and communication networks, and their safe havens. We have
to deal with failing or failed States, not only for the suffering
that their own people undergo, but to prevent terrorists from
exploiting the chaos to inflict suffering on people elsewhere. Our
success depends on the moral clarity of our purpose, in the resolve
of democracies to stand together, in our unequivocal rejection of
terrorism regardless of the garb it seeks to clothe itself in, in
our signal that terror is a discredited instrument that is doomed to
fail, and in our recognition that success of terrorism anywhere
gives it strength and inspiration globally. Beyond Afghanistan, we
will have to address the other epicenter of terrorism in India’s
neighbourhood.
Last year, the two events in South Asia – the campaign in
Afghanistan and our own efforts to address cross-border terrorism
– intersected on the territory of Pakistan. From the clarity that
proximity and experience begets, we can see that the pursuit of Al-Qaeda
and the goal of stability and security in Afghanistan would never be
fully realized unless Pakistan also takes steps to end cross-border
terrorism against India. The infrastructure and institutions that
exist for terrorism against India provide the refuge and the
breeding ground for terrorism against others too. However complex
the challenge may be of dealing with this conundrum, the United
States, India and the international community must address it
squarely.
India and the United States both recognize the frightening
possibilities of the link between the old and the new – between
weapons of mass destruction, on one hand, and non-state actors as
well as states that sponsor, support and abet terrorism, on the
other. The nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction
is frightening. I drew attention to this in my speech at the
Conference on Disarmament just a few days ago, exhorting the CD to
find ways of addressing this new menace. India moved successfully
last year in the UNGA a resolution on the issue of terrorism and WMD.
There are States that are today collaborating in transfers of
nuclear and missile technologies, endangering gravely the security
of democracies. There is also the danger of their weapons falling
into the hands of terrorist outfits. We face new questions about
traditional concepts and methods of deterring, dissuading,
pre-empting and defeating this new asymmetric and unpredictable
threat. I am aware of the intense debate and efforts in this country
to reorient your security doctrines and capabilities to address this
new challenge, and it is one in which our two countries have also
engaged frequently over the past year.
A new phenomenon is the growing incidence of proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems, not by private
entities, but as a result of political and strategic choice by
governments. It creates long-term strategic equity and alliance
among the collaborators and enables them to use their respective
comparative advantages to overcome barriers to advancing their
capabilities. Some of these countries have links with terrorism,
have avowed policies to change the status quo through force or
resort to nuclear blackmail. It is evident that international ad hoc
proliferation control regimes, designed on different assumptions of
proliferation and for a different era, are clearly ineffective in
meeting the resulting threats to international peace and stability.
Developing countries, which exercise self-discipline and adhere to
the rule of law and transparency, find themselves facing both the
constraints of the ad hoc control regimes and a deteriorating
security environment from unchecked clandestine proliferation. India
lies right in the middle of this arc of proliferation and confronts
the dilemma that it represents. The political and security
implications of strategic proliferation cannot be in the interest of
the United States, India and the entire democratic world.
India’s security interest span the region from the Gulf to
South-East Asia. We have close historical, political, cultural,
religious and economic links with this part of the world. Our three
million Indian expatriates work in the Gulf countries, with 1.5
million in Saudi Arabia alone, remitting several billion dollars
every year to India. Their skills help to underpin the stability and
prosperity of these countries. India’s surplus and qualified human
resources are an asset to the region. With South East Asia, India is
rapidly developing close economic links as part of its Look East
policy, which include Free Trade and Economic Partnership Agreements
with Thailand and Singapore respectively, east-west transportation
links connecting, to begin with, India, Myanmar and Thailand and
India’s summit level dialogue with ASEAN. India is also a member
of the ASEAN Regional Forum. India and China have a long common
border and the Sino-Indian equation is a critical element in Asian
peace and security. India has long term strategic interests in
Central Asia and Iran is rapidly becoming a key link in India’s
efforts to have access to this region and Afghanistan. India’s
security requires peace, stability and prosperity in this larger
region.
The US, as a global power, has a powerful presence in this region.
It has now a military presence in Central Asia which is likely to be
long term not only because of Afghanistan but also because of the
oil and gas resources of this region and its geo-political
importance otherwise. The US intends to stay in Afghanistan in the
foreseeable future and barring, perhaps, Pakistan whose ambitions
have been thwarted, all other neighbouring countries, including,
India believe that the US presence in Afghanistan is required to
ward off instability and revival of conflict there. The US has
defence arrangements with Japan and Taiwan and it has a powerful
presence in Asia through various institutions and organizations such
as ARF, APEC, besides the existence of military bases in this
region. US policies towards China, which it considers both a partner
and a competitor, if not a threat, are key to the shaping of the
future strategic balance in Asia. India and the US, therefore, have
a large canvas in Asia to work on in terms of dealing with various
security challenges.
The Iraq issue raises a host of difficult questions to which there
are no easy answers. Many issues are involved : development of
weapons of mass destruction, compliance with UN resolutions,
sanctions, the problem of inspections, validity of pre-emptive
action if there is no immediate threat of aggression, the political
acceptability of regime changes imposed externally, the role of the
UNSC, the debate between unilateralism and multilateralism, double
standards in dealing with situations of similar concern, the
consequences of military action against a country located in an
already volatile region and its consequences, the possible break-up
of the state, the concerns of neighbours, the danger of
radicalization of Islamic opinion, post-war political management,
control of oil supplies, etc. etc. The close allies and friends of
the US raise these questions and doubts. India has some special
concerns about the situation in Iraq because of the presence of
millions of expatriates in the Gulf region, the size of remittances
they send home, volatility of oil prices following armed action, the
sentiments, in particular, of India’s own 140 million Muslims. In
the case of Iraq, there is a conflict between wishes and
expectation. No one wishes a conflict but everyone expects it.
Asia has made substantive progress towards freedom and prosperity.
However, across the immense political, cultural, religious and
economic diversity of Asia, there are many issues that remain
unsettled. Democracy’s advance has been arrested or reversed in
many countries. Progress towards modernity and pluralism confronts
religious extremism and fundamentalism. Economic development is
generating strains within and across societies, as it benefits some
and bypasses others. There are countries that seek to redraw
boundaries and settle claims – historical or imaginary – through
the force of power. There is the challenge of balancing the
legitimate interest of major powers in Asia – Japan, China, India
and ASEAN bloc – and others who have a stake in Asia. With China
we are seeking to strengthen our relationship in diverse fields.
However, there are many aspects of China’s internal and external
policies: the rising profile of China, how its growing strength will
impact on the region and beyond, how and to what extent its economic
success will make its system more democratic, transparent and
comprehensible, all these are of interest and a challenge not only
to India but to the international community as a whole.
Asia has traditionally been seen in terms of its sub-regions, each
with its own dynamics and its own problems. Traditionally, we deal
with them as unconnected compartments. However, lines that insulate
one region from the other are increasingly getting blurred by
proliferation deals that link the east to the west, by the chain of
terror network across West, South and Southeast Asia, by the
concerns about the safety of commerce from the Straits of Hormuz to
the Straits of Malacca, by the challenge of connecting major
consumers of energy to its sources in West and Central Asia.
India’s size, its location at the cross-roads of all important
regions of Asia and its key routes of commerce and communication,
its political stability, the resilience of its democratic
institutions, the broad consensus that binds a billion people
together in an unparalleled diversity, the enterprise and skill of
its people in science and knowledge industries, its exercise of
power with restraint and responsibility, its desire for cooperative
security relations makes it an indispensable factor of stability and
security in Asia and beyond.
India and the United States have the potential to work together and
in partnership with other countries in addressing the existing and
emerging security challenges in the world. We are two societies that
mirror in each other our deepest ideals and aspirations –
democracy, pluralism, the rule of law. Democracy is not the only
factor that defines relations among nations, but it is a strong tool
to counter extremism, fundamentalism and terrorism. By power of
example, Indian and the United States can demonstrate that these
values are not linked to culture, economy or geography, but have a
growing universal aspiration.
The foundation of our engagement is built on many common and
converging interests: promoting stability in Asia-Pacific region,
combating terrorism, preventing and countering proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, managing the consequences of failing
States, protecting the sea lanes of communication and commerce, and
ensuring access to markets and energy resources of the region.
It is in a spirit of candour amongst friends that I wish to convey a
certain sense of disappointment in India born out of the perception
that the international community could do more to ensure an end to
cross-border terrorism from Pakistan, not as a favour to India but
as a part of the international combat against terrorism. There is
little cause for satisfaction on any parameter of cross-border
terrorism. A permanent end to cross-border infiltration does not
mean tactical reductions or fluctuations in levels of infiltration.
During the elections in Jammu & Kashmir, infiltration and
terrorist violence were stepped up with tragic consequences for
candidates and voters. The people of India appreciate the steps that
the United States took under its law against Pakistan-based
terrorist organizations of concern to us and the efforts it made to
extract a commitment from President Musharraf on immediate and
permanent end to infiltration. We recognize, too, that the United
States continues to call for progress in that direction. The
disappointment stems from the lack of results, especially since the
commitment was made to the United States and the international
community. General Musharraf has simply gone back on his
commitments. He has released the leaders of two especially virulent
organizations banned by the US and others. The websites of terrorist
organizations are back in business; fund collection for jehad
against India has again begun openly. The extremist religious
parties, those that were the mainstay of the Taliban and the Al
Qaida are now more firmly entrenched in power, thanks to General
Musharraf’s policies, countenanced by the West, of decimating the
mainstream political parties. The Taliban and the Al Qaida have lost
their base in Afghanistan but have found it in Balochistan and the
North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan, even while the US is
present on Pakistani soil. The astute General understand the many
equities the US has today in Pakistan and exploits this to pursue
his sponsorship of terrorism against India. He plays upon the fears
of the West about a fundamentalist take-over in Pakistan, while
encouraging, at the same time the religious extremists himself in
order to have an insurance cover against western pressure, and in
this manner, has gained western acquiescence for firmly entrenching
military rule in Pakistan by amendments to the constitution and by
manipulating the elections. Pakistan represents everything that is
in the forefront of US concerns: religious fundamentalism,
terrorism, weapons of mass destruction in possession of a failing
state, a military dictatorship masquerading behind a pale democratic
façade. A big challenge India and the US face is to make Pakistan a
genuinely moderate state.
India is ready to make peace even with such an unreliable
leadership. An end to cross-border terrorism from Pakistan will set
in motion the process of normalization of relations and resolution
of outstanding issues between India and Pakistan through direct
bilateral dialogue. For India, there can be no accommodation,
equivocation or ambiguity on the issue of terrorism. It must end.
Nobody is more acutely aware than India of the importance of a
dialogue. But, we have learnt in Lahore and Agra the futility of
going through the motion of dialogue, and the risks inherent in its
inevitable failure, if this dialogue takes place without a change in
the mindset. And, it is our desire for progress that we remain
committed to a composite dialogue process to deal with all issues
simultaneously, based on the universal wisdom that the most
difficult issues are tackled by first addressing the ones that are
easily resolved. Economic relations provide one important route to
move forward. If Pakistan, as a WTO member, were to grant MFN status
to India and make effective progress on the interminably long
negotiating process for a South Asia Preferential Trade Agreement,
it would benefit not only the people of India and Pakistan, but, by
moving the SAARC economic process forward, entire South Asia. The
absence of movement by Pakistan testifies that its call for dialogue
is more for form than substance.
Let me conclude by saying that the transformation underway in
India-US relations and our commonality of interests we see in
meeting new security challenges, are significant features of
India’s foreign policy in recent years. The investment that both
sides have made in the relationship is predicated as much on mutual
benefit as on its global significance. Our broad agenda and the
process that we have crafted for our engagement will provide a sound
basis for an enduring partnership. The United States, the most
powerful democracy, with its belief that it is right to be good, and
India, the most populous democracy, with its belief that it is good
to be right can together promote what is both good and right, in the
one case bringing power to the enterprise and in the other case, the
numbers.
-
Author
is Foreign
Secretary,
Government of India
-
Selected
portions of the text of the address at
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on “India-US
Partnership: Meeting Emerging Security Challenges” made on
February
4, 2003
Home |
