The world is much the same

The terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 in New York and Washington D.C. certainly did not change the world. They changed, and are continu...

The terrorist attacks of September 11 2001 in New York and Washington D.C. certainly did not change the world. They changed, and are continuing to change the United States. The media and the elites all over the world are susceptible to the influence of power. It is no surprise, therefore, that they have continued to echo an American slogan: 9/11 changed the world.

The world is much the same as it was before a bunch of Islamist fanatics crashed their hijacked planes, with their load of innocent men, women and children, into the towers of the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. 8212; the two principal citadels of USA8217;s economic and military might. Millions of human beings continue to suffer the indignity and privation of poverty, hunger and disease; the gulf between rich and poor nations continues to widen; terrorist violence takes its daily toll of life and human values in Palestine and Chechnya, in the Central Asian Republics, in Kashmir and the Philippines. Osama bin Laden may be hiding in Pakistan or in an unmarked grave in Afghanistan, but the Al Qaeda is alive and, according to a recent United Nations report, 8216;8216;fit and well8217;8217;, its financial support largely intact and a new operational chain of command in the making. It lies in wait for its next opportunity to strike.

The Taliban, Pakistan8217;s proxy warriors for Afghanistan8217;s capture, routed in their imperial Islamist adventure, are back in the safety of their original home, plotting fresh campaigns of jehad in new fields. And the US is back to its old way of dancing with dictators and presently in thrall to a bemedalled usurper8217;s macabre pirouetting on the corpse of a nascent democracy in our neighbourhood. So, what has changed in the world?

There is no gainsaying, though, that the September 11 attacks have drastically changed the American domestic scene and Washington8217;s external policies in a variety of ways, some of which could affect the scope and the recent cordiality of our own links with the world8217;s most powerful democracy.

India extended full cooperation to the US in the war of terror, but we grumbled when Washington coerced Pakistan into the alliance. Our grouse was not well-grounded

Terrorism has been around for a long time in India and elsewhere but the US had not experienced its brutal impact. Her anger at the tragic events of 9/11 is, therefore, understandable and her declaration of global war on terror was an inevitable response. After Pearl Harbour, September 11 was perhaps the darkest day in America8217;s life. A grim and unprovoked challenge had been flung at her and a deadly blow struck at her citadels of economic and military power exposing her vulnerability to a new kind of war. Unlike us in India, American society has little patience with or tolerance for such provocations.

The liberal and open American society is host to millions of immigrants from varied cultural backgrounds professing different faiths from all parts of the world. It is an eclectic homogeniser of varied modes of living, customs, cults, traditions, beliefs and civilisational attributes. Acceptance, tolerance and trust are the foundations of such a society. The US takes pains to make entry into its fold difficult, but once a person is admitted, his commitment to the US and the American dream are taken for granted. More than anything else, it is this mutual trust and commitment that make the US such a resurgent, proud and indomitable nation. Its very character also ensures that its response to treachery and betrayal will always be unforgiving, swift and strong. The US may not always be the most steadfast of friends, but its hostility is unswerving and, in the end, fatal to those at whom it is targeted.

The US war on terror is going to be a long one, and it is going to be a time of shifting alliances and unpredictable conflicts. In a recent interview, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said candidly that it was impossible to guard against terrorist attacks in every place and every time, that self-defense required preemption which means taking the battle to the terrorists and to those states that harbour, support or arm them. And that, he added, 8216;8216;requires a more flexible way of establishing alliances8230; The mission must determine the coalition, coalitions must not determine missions8217;8217;. The message could not be any clearer.

Story continues below this ad

India, a long-suffering victim of the terror sponsored by Pakistan, had eagerly extended full cooperation and support to the US in the war of terror, but we grumbled when Washington coerced Pakistan into the alliance. Our grouse was not well-grounded. The US needed a base in Pakistan to hammer and oust the fundamentalist Taliban regime which it had foisted on Afghanistan and to rout the Al Qaeda and destroy its principal base of operations in that country. One cannot say with certainty that Washington trusts General Musharraf, but it still needs him. Surely, the Americans know, as do we, that Al Qaeda and Taliban cadres have found a haven in Pakistan and they can be suitably dealt with there only with the cooperation of an effective authority in Pakistan. General Musharraf and his regime are in a tough situation. Hubris does, now and then, lead to nemesis. Pakistan is no longer a frontline state: in a very real sense it is the main front in this war. And we have no reason to fear that the US-Pak anti-terror cooperation is bound to harm us. In fact, even the existence of a substantial US military base in Jacobabad may prove helpful in curbing the ISI8217;s adventurist tendencies.

In the unfolding geo-strategic situation in the Asia-Pacific region, an Indo-US relationship of friendship, cooperation and trust is of vital importance to both our countries. This relationship ought not to be allowed to remain hostage to Indo-Pak entanglements or to USA8217;s relations with Pakistan. There cannot be any kind of a balance or equation between India and Pakistan. While freeing ourselves from this pre-occupation we should also strongly urge the Americans to get rid of their own syndrome of seeing a balance where none exists. Along with our many shared interests, we are bound to have some differences. We must learn to deal with our differences 8212; over Pakistan today or over Iraq tomorrow 8212; in our respective ways but without causing harm to each others8217; interests.

The writer is a former foreign secretary