Regional
Security Issues and Concerns-A View from Pakistan-2
Post 9/11 Developments-Implications for South Asia
-Dr. Shireen M.
Mazari, Pakistan
While Pakistan has made
a commitment to closing camps run by extremist militant outfits in Pakistan as well as
trying to stop infiltrators from these across the line of control, it has reiterated its
support for the Kashmiris right of self-determination.
After the January 12 th
Musarraf speech, which dealt with this issue of LoC infiltration, what was basically a
tactical, operational shift in Pakistan's Kashmir policy led to the false expectation that
some how Pakistan was washing its hands off the legitimate Kashmiri struggle for
self-determination. A reassertion of this commitment by the Pakistani leadership further
added to India's ire and it seemed as if it was prepared to go to war to make its
point-especially when it expelled Pakistan's High Commissioner from New Delhi in May 2002.
The problem is that, in
the wake of US war on Terrorism US allies like Israel and India have felt that they could
follow the US example and deal with their problems relating to the Palestinians and
Kshmiris through a military solution. This assumption was premised on the growing
international disenchantment with the issue of self-determination. This has been a major
concern for Pakistan after 9/11. Yet, the reality on the ground is that prevailing
international norms continue to give legitimacy not only to the principle of
self-determination but also to the three types of struggles for self-determination-
against colonialism, alien occupation and racism. In this context, the Alm-aty Declaration
of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia, CICA, once
again reaffirmed the distinction between struggles for self-determination and terrorism
and separatist struggles. The Declaration stated categorically that "denial of the
right of self-determination of peoples which remain under foreign occupation", was a
threat to regional and international peace. And, given the nature of the Kashmiri dispute
and its disputed status before the UN Security Council, by any description the Kashmiri
people are under foreign occupation.. This is in marked contrast to separatist movements
like that of the East Turkistan movement in Xinjiang province of China or the Tamil
movement in Sri Lanka or indeed the various insurgencies plaguing the Indian Union, all of
which would come under the rubric of being "one of the main threats and challenges to
the security and stability, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of states.
This Indian expectation
of undermining the legitimacy of the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination and
Pakistan's refusal to renounce its commitment to this struggle has resulted in further
destabilizing the regional situation, especially in the wake of the 9/11 US focus on
terrorism which seems to deliberately ignore the issue of state terrorism. With India now
trying directly link al-Qaeda with the Kashmiri freedom fighters-despite the fact that
Osama bun Laden never spoke on Kashmir at all, let alone supporting the Kashmiri cause-one
should expect the instability to continue unless India is prepared to resume dialogue with
Pakistan.
Finally, within the
military context, the nuclearization of South Asia has also been drawn into the war on
terrorism at two levels:; one, there is a fear that nuclear weapons may fall into
terrorist hands. This is an issue which for Pakistan seems to be a pretext for undermining
Pakistan's nuclear capability by the US attempting to take out its strategic assets. This
is a fear that has been raised within Pakistan and has led to the government to reiterate
that cooperation with the US does not extend to US access into Pakistan's nuclear assets.
Two, the upping up of the military ante by India against Pakistan led to the fear that
there may well be a nuclear war in South Asia, which would have a fallout beyond the
region. Hence there was increased international diplomacy to try and defuse the tensions
between the two states-and a late recognition by the US and its allies that unilateral
pressure on Pakistan was not the way to go about achieving this. Another factor which
brought the prospect of a Pakistan-India war directly into the Afghanistan framework was
the realization by the US that in such an eventuality, Pakistan would have to withdraw its
forces from the Durand Line which would adversely affect the US war against al Qaeda.
Impact of the
"axis of evil": Moving beyond the Pakistan-India bilateral framework, post 9/11
has created new dimensions of global and regional implications of US policy. Especially in
the wake of the US declaration of an "axis of evil" which it will seek to fight,
other coalition partners can get dragged into a US war against a host of states-whomsoever
the US chooses, given the growing unilateralism that has come to define its strategic
policy. Already, the US has begun military operations in the Philippines and Georgia with
the forces of these countries.
Included in this
"axis of evil" are states like North Korea, Iraq and Iran, but Mr. Bush
continues to expand the list at will and at one stage even Cuba and Syria were added on to
the list. Many of these states are either close allies of India and/ or Pakistan or are
strategic neighbors like Iran is to Pakistan. So there is concern over what Pakistan would
do if the US decided to go for military action against Iran-especially since Pakistan has
given the US logistics support in the form of air bases. Would Pakistan allow its
territory to be used for attacks against Iran or even Iraq? If not, how would Pakistan
deal with its military cooperation with the US? These issues have become central to the
dynamics of the new Pakistan-US relationship, and while there is a clear "no" to
the first question, the second question still has not been answered clearly.
Going beyond the
specifics for Pakistan on the "axis of evil" declaration, the issue itself
raises a whole series of disturbing implications. Such a call totally negates the
prevailing global Arms Control and Disarmament regime, AC&D. Accusing Iran, Iraq and
North Korea of producing weapons of mass destruction when all three states are full
parties to most international treaties dealing with control/destruction of these weapons
implies that the US lays no value on such international treaties. It is unfortunate that
the US, in times of wanting to assert its politico-military supremacy uses morality in a
perverse fashion. From the Monroe doctrine to the Evil Empire of Reagan's to the Axis of
Evil-the timings have all coincided with US flexing of its muscle. The problem is that by
attempting to frame global politics in morality, the US not only itself on a weak
wicket-given its own, at the very least, amoral political record internationally and its
support of brutal regimes-but it also destabilizes what could have been a growing
international consensus against the evils of terrorism, both non-state and state. Already,
many US allies have distanced themselves from Bush notion of an "axix of evil".
Many more may move even further away if the Bush aim degenerates into a policy of using
the US arms industry to revive the American economy. Of course, the US has declared that
it will "go it alone if necessary".
Conclusion: What one is
seeing is a new kind of alignment, which will be based upon the idea of core states, which
will then ally with semi-core states and so on. This will see new strategic alliance
systems while old ones will become relegated to regional roles-as with NATO in Europe. The
military reflection of core states alliance will be premised on BMD and the political
tools will be sanctions and "anti-terrorism" of a particular kind. So far, the
core states nest around Anglo-Saxon framework with a few regional powers like Israel,
India and Japan being brought in. The final picture that evolves will depend upon the
further linkages between these states and the other regional and global players.
Within this framework,
it should not be surprising to see the US moving towards destabilizing existing norms and
principles of international relations and regimes that define strategic relationships-like
the arms control and disarmament regime. NATO will also experience shifts in US
commitment-with a beginning already having being made by the US encouraging a NATO-Russia
alliance. Unless the prevailing regimes are undermined, the new agenda of the US can't be
implemented effectively. But it is not yet clear whether the US knows the full
repercussions of moving the world on a destabilizing course. For instance, by undermining
all the existing arms control and disarmament treaties the US will create an anarchic
environment where many states may defy their treaty obligations-on the grounds that their
accession to these is constantly being made non-credible. As it is, one can expect most
states to increase their defense spending in response to the US increase in its defense
budget and its militarism.
For Pakistan, the new
core alignments of the US have a direct bearing on its foreign policy and security
formulations. In the case of the former, it will come under increasing pressure to
withdraw all manner of support for the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination and accept
the LoC as the international border solution to the Kashmir issue. As for the latter, the
Indo-US strategic relationship, with its dimension of transfer of missile defense systems,
will undermine Pakistan's limited missile capability and policy of nuclear restraint.
All in all, 9/11 has
further dissipated the regional divide between South and West Asia, especially from
Pakistan's security perspective. With new external powers now directly interacting in the
region and with the US pushing for an aggressive global policy premised on military force,
Pakistan will have to focus on regional allies and a more aggressive diplomatic
proactivism. Also, it will have to define its relationship with the US in specific terms
and quid pro quos, recognizing that India will be one of the main core states within the
US global strategic formulation. (concluded)
Paper read out by the
author at a seminar jointly organised by NEFAS and Embassy of Pakistan on 16 June,
2002--Chief editor.
JASON,
The eye of the Oceans
-Dominique GARRAUD,
France
The French-American
satellite Jason, launched on 7 December last, is to take high precision altimetric
readings of the level of the oceans. This mission, which originated with the
Topex-Poseidon satellite, opens up unprecedented prospects for marine metereology and the
general study of oceans.
The putting into orbit
the Jason satellite is firstly an illustration of the dazzling success of its predecessor,
the Topex-Poseidon satellite launched by CNES, the French Space Studies Center, from the
Kourou space center in French Guiana in 1992 which revolutionized the world of
oceanography. Placed at an altitude of 1,336 kilometers, Topex-Poseidon permanently
measures the distance separating it from the level of the seas to within a millimeter.
More accurate topographical maps result from the millions of readings made by this
French-American satellite, but Topex-Poseidon also provides completely new information on
the height of the waves, the speed of winds, the effect of tides and, more generally, the
development of the oceans. Studies of the EL Nino phenomenon which overturns tropical
meteorology, are also helped by it.
Jason, which was built
by the French Alcatel-Space company and was launched by NASA from the American base of
Vandenberg in California, will take over from Topex-Poseidon. To begin with, Jason will be
placed in exactly the same orbit as its elder sister satellite in order to take the same
readings and to put the instruments of the two satellites in phase with one another. In a
few months, Topex-Poseidon will be moved into a complementary orbit so as to dounble the
amount of data. This interactivity of the two satellites is essential for oceanographers
in so far as it will enable scientists to work on the slow phenomena of oceans, sometimes
spanning several decades. Representing the French Space Studies Center, CNES, Jean-Louis
Fellous does not hide the fact that "the aim is for altimetric data to become as
indispensable, within ten years, as satellites weather pictures are today". In this
respect, Topex-Poseidon and Jason are bound to have numerous successors thanks, in
particular, to the reduction in costs resulting from technological progress. Jason has
planned life for three years and is five times lighter than Topex-Poseidon and nearly
three times less expensive. There are already plans for launching a Jason-2 Satellite in
2005 in collaboration with CNES and NASA as well as with an American oceanographic agency
and Eumetsat which operates the satellites for seventeen European countries.
Jason will enable
oceanography to make great strides but its readings are also of interest to numerous users
outside the scientific community. Maritime weather forecasts will be more accurate than
ever for cargo vessels, pleasure sailing and safety on oilrigs. A study of current and
whirlpools around which shoals of fish gather is useful for fishermen as well as for
establishing and managing fishing quotas. The protection of the environment will also be
considerably reinforced with permanent surveillance of the coastline and a monitoring and
elimination of accidental pollution such as oil slicks. Jason's performance will also
enable navies in times of war to move their submarines more effectively to avoid enemy
sonars.
However, the most
promising side of the Jason adventure is the fantastic range of studies that this
satellite generates. Jean-Francois Minster, a researcher at IFREMER, the French institute
for research on the exploitation of the sea, thus reminds us that with Topex-Poseidon
"we learnt more in two weeks than in a century of oceanographic missions". Jason
and its successors, he considers, will make it possible to obtain ever more accurate
forecasts of seasonal trends which is a main objective for weather offices and for
preparing society for climatic variations. |
