Stateless Challenges for the State

27^th August 2006
The Malta Independent on Sunday

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.

Iran, as Hizbollah main state sponsor, has through its accolade’s performance in this war, punctually delivered the message that use of military power against it to stem its nuclear ambitions will be no piece of cake. That leaves trade sanctions as the only feasible threat. Trade sanctions would suit the regime in Iran fine, as they would not block their quest for nuclear capability knowing how ineffective such sanctions are in blocking trade, but how effective they are in validating the regime’s domestic support.

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.

Iran has to be persuaded that it does not need nuclear capability to deter a military intervention seeking regime change; that this is best achieved through diplomatic engagement with the objective of disarmament in the whole region.

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.