• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

P. Nagarajan

No one knows what the outcome of an invasion of Iraq would be. One thing is certain. This will not eliminate terrorism. Instead, it is bound to trigger extensive consequences for the US and the world community.

WE ENTERED the 21st century with full of hope and promise of a new epoch. Unfortunately, the horrific and incomprehensible events of September 11 and after have changed all that. Since then, the world is fundamentally a different place, and the grave threat of transnational terrorism has emerged as the most daunting global security problem, with new dimensions and complexity, in the post-Cold War era. The so-called `peace dividend' supposed to accrue in the post-cold war period has become a mirage.

The scourge of terrorism has been inflicting incalculable social, psychological, economic and human costs on all the countries in varying degrees. Also, the fragile global economy has entered the unchartered waters of the post-September 11 unsettling times, with increasing uncertainty and risks of global terrorism. Escalating security protection, insurance, and transaction costs, losses of productivity, and increasing meltdown of financial assets, among other things, are severely constraining economic growth.

The US, the world's superpower with unrivalled political, economic and military dominance, has declared war on terror to protect its national security interest and international security. To achieve this end, in the national security strategy document released in September 20, 2002, the Bush Administration has enunciated the doctrine of `preemptive war' against hostile countries accumulating weapons of mass destruction or harbouring terrorists.

After the post-Afghanistan phase of the war on terrorism, though it is far from over, the US has been on a higher level of war preparation to attack Iraq and overthrow Mr Saddam Hussein. The US President, Mr George W. Bush, has named Iraq, North Korea and Iran as an axis of evil.

The world is fast approaching a defining moment. It is really disturbing that the US has firmly set the stage for an elusive and unending series of `hot wars' against its adversaries to combat terrorism. As Mr Bush says: "These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue them wherever they are''.Prof Ulrich Beck, a German sociologist, is absolutely right when he observes that "we are on the threshold of individualisation of war''.

It is a new type of warfare in which war is no longer conducted state against state, but individuals against states. Comprehending the US winning war on terror is difficult, acting unilaterally with conventional military strategies, particularly when the terrorist network is operating in many countries.

Undoubtedly, no one knows for certain what the outcome of an invasion of Iraq would be. Of course, one thing is certain. This will not eliminate terrorism. Instead, it is bound to trigger extensive consequences, both short-and long-run, for the US and the world community. Prof Beck puts it succinctly: "We live, think, and act according to zombie-like notions; according to notions that have died, but continue to rule our thinking and our actions. Yet if the military, trapped in its old notions, responds with conventional methods such as surface bombings, for instance, then it is legitimate to fear these not only ineffective but also counterproductive; new Osama bin Ladens will be bred''.

The jury is still out on whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Surprisingly, no credible evidence exists to link Iraq's ties with Al Qaeda's operational networks. Iraq has neither attacked nor threatened the internal security of the US. Since the Gulf War, Mr Saddam Hussein has not threatened the security of other country.

A hasty, unilateral US decision to attack Iraq just to disarm Mr Saddam Hussein, without giving more time for the UN weapons inspectors to do their job effectively, is bound to trigger myriads of problems and dangers in the years to come. Mr Paul R. Pillar, a former deputy chief of the counter-terrorist centre at the Central Intelligence Agency, also argues that conventional responses to fight terrorism could intensify the terrorist threat, and jeopardise other US foreign policy interests.

Since transnational terrorism affects all countries, directly or indirectly, it is the collective responsibility of all the countries to deal with it through the UN Security Council. The US cannot win the war on terrorism by acting unilaterally, just by winning the `war on Iraq'.

On the economic front, Mr Bush says: "The US will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, free market, and free trade to every corner of the world''.

Obviously, the Bush Administration has carved out a unique role in leading the world toward its visionary path. The US national security strategy is based on a distinctly American internationalism reflecting their values and their national interests. Probably, nothing is wrong in reasserting the trend that is already set in motion. However, the problem lies in the failure of the US administration to realise that most often what is good for the US is not always good for others.

Finally, collective wisdom should prevail in addressing the grave danger of transnational terrorism.

A change of regimes in Iraq is not going to solve the threat of terrorism. This would simply destabilise the political situation in that part of the volatile region, with devastating consequence.

Diplomacy, intelligence, international cooperative strategies, conflict management techniques, and an increasing understanding of the underlying forces leading to the formation and growth of terrorists' network, among other things, are important elements in combating transnational terrorism.

(The author is Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Canada.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
Outsourcing requires controls

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line