The Hindu : Post-Cold War tasks

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Mar 23, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Post-Cold War tasks

By P. V. Narasimha Rao

If we are to sustain democracy and development round the globe, there is no alternative to a genuinely multilateral, non-discriminatory, and development-oriented trading system.

THE WORLDWIDE advent of terrorism has raised new doubts and dangers. Large modern armies cannot control terrorists. Pinpoint bombing capabilities of modern bombers are helpless before them. Huge navies are irrelevant. The terrorist can choose any time, any place, any form and any strategy to carry out his mission in total anonymity and bring about massive devastation. It is a great irony that all the material for destruction manufactured and stockpiled over several decades has become ineffective overnight in fighting one man with a gun — howsoever crude or rusted. In fact, the terrorists' arms often happen to be sophisticated.

After the tragedy of September 11, 2001, a deep shock was spontaneously felt throughout the world. It may be that before this there was complacency about the menace and even some tendency to make it a pawn on the political chessboard to settle scores. But after 9/11, there has come about a definite realisation that no part of the world is free from fear any longer. The whole world should unite to end this menace. The action needs to be total, and therefore varied and well-coordinated.

What is this pervading and increasing terrorism due to? There appears to be no single or simple answer to this question. Terrorism emanates from different causes or bunches of causes in different countries. Starting from high-flaunting ideology through religious bigotry to the crude criminal motivation of shoot and loot, the spectrum is varied and multi-layered. There are many cases where the sheer callousness of authorities or sheer negligence owing to non-realisation of the gravity of the problem has led to terrorism. Economic and social causes have triggered it for long stretches of time. The challenge needs a minute, discriminating and, above all, patient sifting before it can be met successfully.

Some of these activities may be carried on with the knowledge and, in some cases, connivance of some states. In the new terminology, they are referred to as `rogue states.' The term also includes states engaged in clandestine manufacture of nuclear weapons.

One variant of the new philosophy is to name these so-called rogue states and attack them, perhaps to punish them ostensibly for harbouring terrorists. It is not generally easy to establish this link. Where the harbouring, if at all done, is by the people instead of the state, the attack brings no positive result. Even without the state sheltering him, the terrorist can resort to his gun to find food and shelter from helpless people.

We have seen any number of such instances in India where innocent people were punished by the administration for giving shelter to terrorists while the people had no way of resisting the terrorists because the latter could come and go as they pleased, just by showing their guns. This clearly shows that the rogue states thesis in several cases is flawed and can become counterproductive.

However, the worldwide nature of terrorism does not appear to have been fully realised. American authors seem to confine their attention to the American context alone; all theories and their contradictions are contained within that area of enquiry. As a matter of fact, it is in the third world that the intensity and variety of terrorism are found in all their starkness. So any global remedy or antidote to terrorism can be found only after a full probe into the havoc it has wrought for decades in this part of the world.

In the new context, it is necessary to pay concentrated attention to the manufacture and propagation of small arms and light weapons. There are too many complications in this — even more than in the case of large weapons. So the next several years need to be devoted in meeting this menace effectively.

Coming to other measures, it is generally seen that democratic states do not foment or export terrorism. This seems to have given rise to an opinion in some quarters that one way of combating terrorism is to plant or export democracy into undemocratic countries. This is obviously a simplistic solution.

Democracy is not a commodity that can be exported. It has to come and grow from within. There are areas that have remained strife-ridden for centuries. It has not been found possible to bring peace, as we understand it, to such areas. All that can be done is to insulate other peace-loving states from them and work and wait for change to come from within under the overall impact of world events.

All this shows the complex nature of the post-Cold War world. Even tentative or short-term prescriptions are not in sight. What one hears is protest all over. To those who are content with continuing protest, there is an unending agenda. Protest, however, cannot be a viable substitute for well thought-out action. What is necessary, and infinitely more difficult, is to suggest a plan of action — both for states and peoples.

A parallel process is going on alongside the projected clash of civilisations. We are witnessing the break-up of nation-states along ethnic and religious lines. There has been a tremendous upsurge in ethnic particularity and religious extremism that threatens to rip apart the national fabric of several states. Less than 10 per cent of the 170 states in the world today are ethnically homogeneous. Only about 50 per cent have one ethnic group that accounts for more than 70 per cent of the population.

Once the present nation-state is called into question on the basis of ethnic or religious particularity, it is difficult to see where the process will stop. Fragmentation has already set in motion forces that will cause more fragmentation. This is happening in several parts of the world and resulting in chaos, violence, and bloodshed.

The quest for homogeneity will, in most cases, prove a mirage. The world has to live, and learn to live happily, with plurality. The trend of ethnic fragmentation should stop — in the interest of mankind. But why does fragmentation become such a powerful urge? Most often it is a strong sense of grievance regarding exploitation of one group by another through force for a long time. When the element of force weakens or disappears, the urge to separate asserts itself. The exploitation is often economic or political, perhaps both. But it is often forgotten that the same exploitation can and does continue in a uni-ethnic society.

The solution lies in moving toward a non-exploitative society wherein the availability of opportunity is reasonably well distributed. But since exploitation is often done through violence, a non-exploitative society is possible only under conditions of non-violence. Mahatma Gandhi conceived of and advocated a society of this nature.

The same principle applies to a world order consisting of many societies and groups. The relations among states should thus be reorganised on non-exploitative and non-violent lines. This is not to propose any lofty ideal. It is a practical possibility. Of course, it will take time, a long time perhaps. Even the acceptance of this pattern is not going to be easy. Nevertheless, one is not aware of any alternative pattern that would be viable.

As a democracy, India has welcomed the popular upsurge that swept across the globe, bringing freedom and opportunity to peoples of countries long suppressed by unrepresentative governments. It must not be assumed that this resurgence of democracy in several parts of the world is a permanent and irreversible condition. There is nothing automatic about democracy. It is a political form that has evolved over many centuries. Democracy needs to be consciously evolved and practised.

Similar considerations are relevant in devising an appropriate development strategy. The experience of many countries indicates that a market-oriented economy is suited to bringing about an efficient allocation of resources — and consequently more rapid economic development. We in India have given a market orientation to our economic policy, reducing the degree of government control over productive activity and providing an environment that encourages the spirit of enterprise in our people. However, the role of the state in economic life will continue to be crucial.

There is no mechanistic equation between a free market and economic development, just as a free market is not necessarily equal to democracy. This is particularly true in developing countries where neither the affluence of the few nor their philanthropy can be assumed to extend all the way down to the base of the pyramid.

Large numbers of our population are outside the operation of market forces. State intervention is necessary if we are to alleviate poverty and distress for these sections and to raise their living standards, at least in the foreseeable future. Besides, in developing countries the state often has to play an active role to create the conditions in which markets can work — for example, by providing the necessary infrastructure and often institutional support, not to mention conditions of law and order, conditions of equal opportunity, and conditions of fairness in society as a whole. These need to be ensured even for a free market economy to function in a state.

If this is the case, the international structure we seek cannot be found in the direction in which we are presently headed. The fragile institutions of democracy in the developing world as well as in countries that have just emerged from the collapse of the socialist system are threatened most by economic deprivation and lack of development. All these countries are reorienting their economic policies to utilise the advantages of market orientation. But we must not assume that this reorientation alone will solve all problems, independent of the international environment.

We must also not assume that this reorientation is going to be easy or that it can be accomplished within a short time. It will pass through many bumps before it arrives. Besides, such economic reorientation needs time to have its full effect, and in this process all these economies can be greatly helped by appropriate international support.

They need a greater injection of financial resources to support their reform efforts. Even where such support is available, its adequate and appropriate application so as to promote reforms in reality, needs to engage our attention on a continuing basis. The countries also need assured access to markets in industrialised countries. Their opening up to the world will be effective only if the world also opens up to them.

All this calls for renewed commitment to multilateral international cooperation. Without this, we run the risk of discrediting economic reform as well as democracy in many countries. We are aware of the trends that are threatening to develop in some of these countries where the advent of democracy, the advent of liberalisation, and the advent of opening up have not produced results in the short run.

When there is a sudden change in the system and the change has not been properly assimilated and internalised, the need is for results in the short run, however slight, however halting. If these results are not there and people are worse off than they were, say, ten years ago, there will be the danger of a backlash.

Similarly, economic development must be put at the very centre of the international agenda. The international economic environment must be conducive to growth. The trend toward a truly global marketplace must be promoted and not retarded by protectionism, unilateralism, and discriminatory trade practices.

Over the past several years, the principle of multilateralism in trade has been seriously eroded. Development, which was recognised as a central concern in the multilateral trading system, has now been pushed to the sidelines. If we are to sustain democracy and development round the globe, there is no alternative to a genuinely multilateral, non-discriminatory, and development-oriented trading system.

To conclude:

1) Any concept based on the idea of a world reorganised under one entity is unrealistic and unacceptable.

2) Any arrangement whereby economic disparities are accentuated will not be conducive to the world's prosperity in the long run.

3) On the economic side, any process of liberalisation or globalisation should be accompanied by a detailed scrutiny of its long- and medium-term negative effects. Any major change in the economic system is bound to have positive as well as some negative consequences. Sound management consists in maximising the positive and combating the negative effects. The pattern of plurality should not, under any circumstances, be tampered with. This is the only viable pattern for peace and prosperity.

4) The emergence of one Superpower has the potential of doing immense good, under suitable conditions. Patiently steering through knee-jerk short-term posturing and mishandling, all (including the Superpower, of course) should make vigorous and concerted efforts to bring out that good.

5) The unfinished task of total disarmament should continue until the world is freed from the wasteful and unaffordable luxury of nuclear weapons.

(This concludes a two-part article by the former Prime Minister.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

BRUTAL AND SENSELESS

THE CHALLENGE OF PEOPLE'S WAR