The month long war between
Israel and Hizbollah is thankfully over. Whether it is a mere pause or a something
more permanent remains to be seen.
It seems that in the twenty first century the nature of wars has
changed. In a post cold war era, where
everybody hoped for lasting peace and prosperity as countries switch more
resources from defence related expenditure to economic
growth investment, we are experience hot conventional wars but of a different
kind.
It is no longer country against country, or a group of countries
against another group of countries.
It is guerrilla wars between countries and stateless organisations that
subtly dominate proper states, like Afghanistan and Lebanon , rendering them as a threat to their neighbours.
It started with 9/11.
Nothing has been quite the same again since.
As a result the only super-power has been engaged in a war on
terror. How does one make a war on an
abstract like terror? Who will sign the
surrender pact when and if terror is defeated?
Can terror be defeated? Or is it
the case that those we term terrorists are perceived by the stateless warring
opponents as freedom fighters? Could
the war on terror in fact be the best process for the recruitment of more
terrorists, making such war impossible to win?
These considerations seem to have escaped the sole super-power when
it was hurt in its core pride by the events of 9/11. America ’s reaction was emotional but irrational and shortsighted. It spent the international sympathy and
political capital it earned in a bullying war against a country that had pretty
little or nothing to do with the events of 9/11. Rather than target Al Qaeda in their Afghan hideouts in accordance with a valid
mandate from the UN, it diverted its energies and military resources in the
occupation of Iraq on very flimsy pretext and without proper cover of a UN
resolution.
Rather than spend its political capital to grow
America ’s influence in a framework of multilateralism, the Bush administration wasted it in the
execution of pre-conceived plans to bring a regime change in
Iraq in full denial tof the long held wisdom of
better- the-devil-you-know.
This mega mismanagement of the proper discharge of responsibilities
that come with the package of being the world’s sole super-power has left the
world with a power vacuum that is being filled by uncontrolled stateless
organisations like Hizbollah and Al Qaeda. They have
no embassies, no ministers and no seats in the UN. They are amorphous, take cover as sleeper,
religious or charity cells within normal communities and are motivated to the
point of suicide attacks mostly by their hate of what they perceive as western
arrogance typified by America ’s unreserved support for Israel even when the latter go beyond the provisions of UN resolutions in
the pursuit of their national security.
They are offended by the use of different weights for same measure when
Iraq was invaded twice in twelve years for the similar
breach.
Now that the guns have stopped in
Lebanon and Israel , is it true that Hizbollah has been
weakened? Is the fact that the UN
brokered ceasefire seems to be holding indicative that Hizbollah are in fact being disarmed? I doubt it.
A more likely scenario is that Hizbollah is now
shifting its resources to repairing the damaged infrastructure and help
dislocated people return to their homes.
In the process they engage more ‘freedom fighters’ and gain general
patronage in preparation for the next fighting round.
If Iran proceeds relentlessly to nuclear capability it will be the second of
the three members forming the ‘axis of evil’
(North Korea , Iran and Iraq ) who would have made the dubious grade. This will motivate other nations to harbour similar ambitions knowing that only non-nuclear
Iraq was effectively invaded.
For the nuclear capable countries it is at worst trade sanctions
discipline, which can hardly be expected to deliver regime
change.
It is time for reflection.
Can we afford the risk of proliferation of nuclear capability till it
becomes accessible to stateless states, or terrorist
organisations if you prefer? Or should
we step back and realise that the only real solution
is across the board nuclear disarmament in the entire region,
Israel included.
Can’t the world realise that like the
Russians before them, Palestinians and Hizbollahs love
their children too and would rather live in peace and resultant prosperity if
their security could be guaranteed and differences addressed through
diplomacy.
For this to happen these organisations
cannot remain stateless. The fact that
Hamas are now the elected government in
Palestine is a good opportunity to engage them in diplomacy for a two state
solution. Hizbollah must be forced to form part of
Lebanon ’s military structure rather than continue to be a stateless state
within a state.
Active diplomatic engagement by honest state and UN brokers is the
best way to prevent another war and to protect the respective integrity of the
various states in the region.
It is ironical that the traditional state is being squeezed from both
sides. Stateless organisations are
challenging the political and military authority of the state within its own
borders. Globalisation on the other hand is rendering the state quite
powerless on the economic front as it can no longer dictate the rules but can at
best only manage internal change to adjust to the new rules of globalisation.
No wonder the future of the state is being brought into question as
individual states are seeking to form alliances for wide multi state
co-operation under the aegis of supranational organisations like the EU, NAFTA,
and ASEAN.
This leads to the burning issue of
Turkey ’s aspiration to gain accession to the EU. It is simplistic to argue that
Turkey should be refused entry, as it is not a European country with
typical Christian traditions. Should
we neglect the risk of Turkey becoming a failed state if the national unity achieved by its
European accession project is replaced by internal strife of the various
factions that make Turkey what it is today? No
matter how difficult, diplomatic engagement for
Turkey ’s distant accession into the EU must be kept going at all
costs.