 |
Kathmandu Sunday February 03, 2002 Magh 21, 2058.
|
Powell’s peace mission
By BISHNU HARI NEPAL
After the Dec 13, 2001 cowardly attack on the
Indian Parliament building, the SAARC region has again become the playground of global
diplomacy. In this crucial game of the nuclear powers of the world, India, as usual,
stands at the epicentre. For, the December thirteen barbaric attack not only took thirteen
lives, but also symbolised a strong blow by terrorism at the heart of the largest
democracy of the world. The incident took place at a time when the wounds from the Twin
Towers and Pentagon assaults on September eleven had not even healed properly. Side by
side, at a time, when the US was not able to smoke out Osama bin Laden and Omar Mullah and
when the Afghan war against terrorism was on the verge of a Zero-Sum-Game.
Any political scientist knows that after the
dramatic fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the unimaginable collapse of the then USSR
together with its East European Satellites and the Warsaw Pact in 1991, the US led the end
of bi-polarism and the emergence of the uni-polarism vs multi-polarism trend. The sole
Super Power has proved its military and technical supremacy worldwide, particularly,
during Operation Desert Storm and in Kosovo-Herzegovina in the recent past and in
Afghanistan today.
The US also demonstrated that she is much
superior to the total European strategic and technical capability, and has a valedictory
say in the UN and its agencies. Under such circumstances, ex-General of the US army Colin
Powell, in the capacity of the US Secretary of State, led a peace mission recently from
Afghanistan to Japan.
Political developments in South Asia have always
remained volatile. Inhabited by one-fifth of the world population, this part of the globe
possesses special strategic value. The post-colonial era in this region has been most
crucial and full of unrest. Three major wars between India and Pakistan have been fought
in 1948,1965 and 1971. The Indo-China war of 1962, the merge of Sikkim with India in 1975
and the operation of the Indian army in Sri Lanka to crush the LTTE under the
Rajiv-Jayawardane Pact of July 27,1987 are some bitter examples of great regional danger.
Today, the stand to position of more than one million troops along the Indo-Pak border is
danger to peace and security in the region.
In the 1990s, George Fernandes as the Defence
Minister of India had publicly announced that the security fear for India was China rather
than Pakistan. Perhaps the Indian viewpoint was that China had gone nuclear in 1964, and
the border disputes is a fresh wound still. In 1971, this country with the largest
population in the world became a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council. It was
obviously an awkward position for India due to bilateral and regional factors. As a result
of the new scenario and victory over Pakistan in 1971, India was looking for a defence
partner for the regional balance of power system. Therefore, she had signed a Security
Pact with the then USSR, and joined the nuclear club on Buddha Poornima in May 1974. Mrs
Gandhi proudly declared the Indian capability in the words: Buddha Might Be Smiling Today.
For many political scientists, the Gujral
Doctrine was a ray of hope in the region for a peaceful settlement of disputes,
particularly so long after the 1972 Shimla Agreement between India and Pakistan. The
Gujral Doctrine also brought up two important developments with reference to India: the
Farakka issue between India and Bangladesh and the Mahakali Treaty between Nepal and
India.
But what is the nexus between Powell’s
peace mission starting from Afghanistan and covering Pakistan, India, Nepal and Japan and
the Gujral Doctrine? This is perhaps a relevant question. The answer is that the Fernandes
approach to the China factor was changed by the May 1998 Pakistani Nuclear Tests as an
immediate response to the Second Pokharan Nuclear Test by India. The Kargil War named
Operation Vijaya by the Indian side reversed the Fernandes approach.
If we observe the frequency and rank of exchange
of visits by world leaders since last December 13, the misfortune of war between the two
SAARC Nuclear Powers seems next door. Why draw attention to the danger? The answer comes
from the sentiments expressed by the respective leaders. For instance, Indian PM Vajpayee
said on Dec 13: waar paar ki ladaain hogi - will be the final war against terrorism.
It was the voice of the second largest
population of the world, which is nuclear. Diplomatic channels between the two nuclear
neighbours were closed within days. Not only did Gen Musharraf visit Beijing two times in
three weeks but also Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji in the name of economic and IT
developments and British Prime Minister Tony Blair as a peace messenger paid visits to
India. Jaswant Singh’s and George Fernandes’ visits to the US simultaneously
during this period are also amply indicative of a grave situation. Similarly, Vajpayee’s
Tokyo visit cannot be minimised either. Pakistan’s reaction during the Sharif regime
cannot be forgotten: if necessary, Pakistan would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons.
Colin Powell is fully aware that India does not
want any third party mediation in Kashmir. Perhaps, for the US creating a conducive
environment for making peace is important. To support this statement, we can analyse the
adjectives used by Powell in Islamabad, where Pakistan was described as ‘true friend’,
and in New Delhi where he spoke of the problem between ‘two friends’. In Nepal’s
case, Powell used the phrase ‘Nepal is a good friend.’
For the US, Osama, dead or alive, now, is only a
‘cause’ not the ‘effect’. Because, the evil is already a defeated
enemy. Therefore, in the case of Afghanistan, the mission was more of a reconstructive
nature. Take the Afghan demand for 45 billion US dollars. The Tokyo initiative received a
response of some 4 billion. This is still very important for Afghanistan. We can again
recall Japan under the Allied Powers during Post-World War II era, 1945-1951 and the role
of Gen MacArther as the supreme commander in the reconstruction of Japan. Afghanistan must
take this opportunity and the lesson of world history very sincerely. Thus, in the eyes of
a peace activist, the Powell Peace Mission can be categorised in three ways: peacekeeping
in Afghanistan, peacemaking in India and Pakistan and peace-building in Nepal, where the
internal war is in full swing.
The historic visit became possible due to the
Maoist crisis in Nepal and her diplomatic posture as the current SAARC President. But it
is quite remarkable that the US, time and again, is openly asking the government to
mitigate corruption in Nepal. Suggesting to the government good-governance, not prolonging
the emergency and respect for human rights, Powell also hinted that the cause of extremism
among youths is unemployment.
Even though details of the talks between the
army chief and Secretary of State Powell were not brought out, one can speculate that the
Army briefed him on the current status and put forth a demand list for strengthening the
Royal Nepal Army both in human and technical terms. Financial aid packages are naturally
significant provided the government can select the priority projects and utilise and
properly. Since combating terrorism is the priority agenda of the American Senate, a
country like Nepal could draft a huge economic reconstruction plan as a part of the
security package. But frankly, it needs to conform to the traditional thinking pattern of
Nepalese planners. Similarly, on the political level, the overwhelming support for
constitutional monarchy, after the tragic Narayanhity massacre, helped the palace in its
confidence building.
To conclude, neither India nor Pakistan can
negate the Powell proposal on peaceful settlement of disputes. As we can see, this was
clearly demonstrated by Pakistan by allowing the use of its soil and sky by US forces to
destroy the Taliban government, although Pakistan was the only nuclear power to offer
recognition to the Taliban government. Pakistan was one of only three countries of the
world to do so. Gen Musharraf, in his national address, even told the Pakistanis that it
was the most crucial phase in Pakistani history after 1971. As a matter of fact, this
support to the US was to protect her own national interest, avoiding war against itself
and further strengthening the military rule of Gen Musharraf.
Similarly, Powell has clearly understood that
China was the first Permanent Member of the Security Council to give recognition to the
Musharraf government, saying that Pakistan is ‘an old friend’. This country was
supplying military aircraft to Pakistan even very recently. Therefore, there is less
probability of a ‘big war’ immediately between India and Pakistan. This is
because, China and India do not really want a confrontation involving the west.
The same conclusion can also be drawn from the
Pakistani initiative in banning extremist groups and arresting hundreds of terrorist
suspects. Musharraf personally does not seem to be in a mood for war at the moment. He
also demonstrated this by offering an ‘official handshake of friendship’ to
Vajpayee during the SAARC Summit in Kathmandu. It remains to be seen whether he will be
ready to hand over a list of people demanded by the Indian government. And can he accept
the LOC as the border line as proposed by Dr Farooq Abdullah? Political scientists can
only wait for the evolution of events. Finally, India and Pakistan, if they really go into
a ‘final war’, should not forget that the victor would also be a great loser.
Other Stories
|
