South Asia: Worsening security scenario
Thursday, 18 September 2008
Enayet Rasul
South Asia, home to one quarter of humanity, is seen to be getting drawn into a vortex of security related problems. Potential interventionists in the region's affairs may contend that the insecurity is the making of the political entities of the region themselves. But any honest and thorough appraisal of the issues would only unravel that the security problems were largely the constructs of the ones who are outsiders to the region.
For example, the current conflict in Afghanistan cannot be seen in isolation from the Russian invasion of that country, subsequent US moves to get the invaders expelled and their collaboration with Islamic radicals in that period that led to the growth of tangles for the future. The Islamists who were the bulwarks of the US against the Russian invasion are now turning their guns against their former patrons. But the patrons were responsible for arming and training them. The skills and know-how developed by these Islamists are proving to be now damaging for the US and their allies. But it is also questioned whether the US and its allies have a game plan to intervene actively and physically in South Asia on the plea of this region's alleged growing links to terrorism.
A number of developments over the last fortnight have only deepened fears about interventionism in the region and its likely devastating fall-outs. Apparently, the incidents seem to be not linked to one another but are they really so ? First, the stepped up unilateral strikes by US forces from Afghanistan into Pakistani territory, has been dramatically changing the strategic equation in the region. It has now come under a question whether Pakistan's long standing position as an ally of the West against terrorism will remain after these attacks.
Reactions from Pakistan have been quite prompt and blunt. The powerful army chief in that country has not only verbally protested the US attacks in specially stern language, he has also ordered Pakistan troops to kill or destroy foreign forces found in Pakistani territories, a clear reference to the US and multinational forces across the borders in Afghanistan. Members of the present civilian government are also flexing their muscles and calling for rescinding whatever understanding Pakistan has with the West about military actions against extremists. Large demonstrations are occurring in Pakistan against the latest US attacks which show the depth of the people's resentment against their country's security arrangement with the US against their religious brethren.
Apparently again, the current mood in Pakistan goes against US interests. But the question cannot help but arise whether such a mood was being deliberately created. Of course the Bush administration can say that stepped up Taleban activities in Afghanistan, their killing of coalition forces in that country and the rather cooled down conduct of the Pakistani forces against the Talebans within Pakistan, all of these factors forced President Bush to order the attacks within Pakistan unilaterally. But notwithstanding such rationalisation, there is probably no great need on the part of the US to act so recklessly. The war against the Talebans in Afghanistan remains still largely manageable by taking actions within the Afghan borders. Besides, the US could always consult and soften the Pakistani authorities before undertaking these attacks. Such a course would save the honour of the Pakistani administration and the military that they were consulted after all and they sort of approved these attacks. Doing none of these things and the sudden launching of these attacks, therefore, have only forced a direct confrontation between the US and Pakistan. So, the question is why the US government decided on such a course knowing fully that a confrontation would develop as a result .
Thus, one may not be blamed for stretching the imagination and linking the escalation of the conflict beyond Pakistan's borders as a way of deliberately drawing Pakistan into a military showdown with the US like in Iraq and elsewhere in the Islamic world. The US was never in favour of a Pakistan possessing nuclear arms specially because of the Islamic credentials of that country. The US reluctantly accepted the nuclear status of Pakistan. But whatever confidence it had about the nuclear armoury of that country remaining safe and under responsible supervision, was shattered from knowing that the architect of the Pakistani A-bomb had secretly passed on the knowledge of bomb baking to certain rogue states. Ever since, the US has been looking for an opportunity to try and lay its hands on the Pakistani nuclear armoury justifying that the growing instability of that country and ascendancy of Islamic extremists forces there, require such moves. Some analysts have wondered whether the worsening instability in Pakistan leading to its acquiring the branding as a failed state, whether these developments are being deliberately engineered to facilitate Western or particularly US intervention of the Iraqi type in that country.
And it is speculated that calculated moves are also there to push India into the US and Western bandwagon in this strategic game. The recent bomb blasts in India and fresh violence in India held part of Kashmir, are cited as deliberately whipped up troubles to again spoil Indo-Pak relations. The more the relations get frayed centering on these and other issues, New Delhi might feel tempted to consent to any military actions by outside powers in South Asia and even to take part in them.
Thus, Bangladesh and all the countries of South Asia have reasons to be extremely wary in watching over these developments . They must not fall into the traps being set for them. For one thing can be said with certainty : South Asia as a whole will suffer in varying degrees from embracing the designs which are probably being hatched by players far away from its borders.
South Asia, home to one quarter of humanity, is seen to be getting drawn into a vortex of security related problems. Potential interventionists in the region's affairs may contend that the insecurity is the making of the political entities of the region themselves. But any honest and thorough appraisal of the issues would only unravel that the security problems were largely the constructs of the ones who are outsiders to the region.
For example, the current conflict in Afghanistan cannot be seen in isolation from the Russian invasion of that country, subsequent US moves to get the invaders expelled and their collaboration with Islamic radicals in that period that led to the growth of tangles for the future. The Islamists who were the bulwarks of the US against the Russian invasion are now turning their guns against their former patrons. But the patrons were responsible for arming and training them. The skills and know-how developed by these Islamists are proving to be now damaging for the US and their allies. But it is also questioned whether the US and its allies have a game plan to intervene actively and physically in South Asia on the plea of this region's alleged growing links to terrorism.
A number of developments over the last fortnight have only deepened fears about interventionism in the region and its likely devastating fall-outs. Apparently, the incidents seem to be not linked to one another but are they really so ? First, the stepped up unilateral strikes by US forces from Afghanistan into Pakistani territory, has been dramatically changing the strategic equation in the region. It has now come under a question whether Pakistan's long standing position as an ally of the West against terrorism will remain after these attacks.
Reactions from Pakistan have been quite prompt and blunt. The powerful army chief in that country has not only verbally protested the US attacks in specially stern language, he has also ordered Pakistan troops to kill or destroy foreign forces found in Pakistani territories, a clear reference to the US and multinational forces across the borders in Afghanistan. Members of the present civilian government are also flexing their muscles and calling for rescinding whatever understanding Pakistan has with the West about military actions against extremists. Large demonstrations are occurring in Pakistan against the latest US attacks which show the depth of the people's resentment against their country's security arrangement with the US against their religious brethren.
Apparently again, the current mood in Pakistan goes against US interests. But the question cannot help but arise whether such a mood was being deliberately created. Of course the Bush administration can say that stepped up Taleban activities in Afghanistan, their killing of coalition forces in that country and the rather cooled down conduct of the Pakistani forces against the Talebans within Pakistan, all of these factors forced President Bush to order the attacks within Pakistan unilaterally. But notwithstanding such rationalisation, there is probably no great need on the part of the US to act so recklessly. The war against the Talebans in Afghanistan remains still largely manageable by taking actions within the Afghan borders. Besides, the US could always consult and soften the Pakistani authorities before undertaking these attacks. Such a course would save the honour of the Pakistani administration and the military that they were consulted after all and they sort of approved these attacks. Doing none of these things and the sudden launching of these attacks, therefore, have only forced a direct confrontation between the US and Pakistan. So, the question is why the US government decided on such a course knowing fully that a confrontation would develop as a result .
Thus, one may not be blamed for stretching the imagination and linking the escalation of the conflict beyond Pakistan's borders as a way of deliberately drawing Pakistan into a military showdown with the US like in Iraq and elsewhere in the Islamic world. The US was never in favour of a Pakistan possessing nuclear arms specially because of the Islamic credentials of that country. The US reluctantly accepted the nuclear status of Pakistan. But whatever confidence it had about the nuclear armoury of that country remaining safe and under responsible supervision, was shattered from knowing that the architect of the Pakistani A-bomb had secretly passed on the knowledge of bomb baking to certain rogue states. Ever since, the US has been looking for an opportunity to try and lay its hands on the Pakistani nuclear armoury justifying that the growing instability of that country and ascendancy of Islamic extremists forces there, require such moves. Some analysts have wondered whether the worsening instability in Pakistan leading to its acquiring the branding as a failed state, whether these developments are being deliberately engineered to facilitate Western or particularly US intervention of the Iraqi type in that country.
And it is speculated that calculated moves are also there to push India into the US and Western bandwagon in this strategic game. The recent bomb blasts in India and fresh violence in India held part of Kashmir, are cited as deliberately whipped up troubles to again spoil Indo-Pak relations. The more the relations get frayed centering on these and other issues, New Delhi might feel tempted to consent to any military actions by outside powers in South Asia and even to take part in them.
Thus, Bangladesh and all the countries of South Asia have reasons to be extremely wary in watching over these developments . They must not fall into the traps being set for them. For one thing can be said with certainty : South Asia as a whole will suffer in varying degrees from embracing the designs which are probably being hatched by players far away from its borders.