This discourse is not about what happened
and when, or about what is happening or may happen. This is about
what should happen or needs to be done.
THE EUROPEAN EXAMPLE
We all know how the institutions of the European Union have
changed the scene in Europe. After the devastation of the two
world wars, and hundreds of years of struggle for the mastery of
Europe, what began as a Coal and Steel Community has culminated in
an European Union, with even a common currency, and mixed military
regiments. All this has happened in a span of just 50 years. The
continent which was the most dangerous region of the world for 200
years, if we go back only to the Napoleonic invasions, has become
the most stable part of the world, ready to play a stabilizing
role in the rest of the world.
ASIA THE NEW CONTINENT OF INSTABILITY
The mantle of instability and
potential danger for the rest of the world has been taken over by
another continent, Asia. Whether it is the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict in West Asia, or the India-Pakistan confrontation in
south Asia, or the Korean conundrum in the East, or more
importantly, the Sino-Indian equation, involving one-third of the
world's population, it is Asia which is calling the shots for
attention of policy makers and thinkers and those concerned about
peace and stability in the world. The Afghanistan crisis was just
the beginning. The Iraq war was a further confirmation. There is
already talk of other wars in Asia. Hints have been dropped from
time to time about Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.
Taiwan and Tibet continue to simmer, and so does the Sino-Indian
border problem.
CHINA AND INDIA SHOULD COME TOGETHER
Questions have been raised why China
has not settled its border problem with India, when it has done so
with most other neighbors including Russia. The Mac Mohan Line
that is the issue in the border problem between India and China
has been accepted by China in regard to Myanmar, but not yet in
regard to India. Is this a border problem causing a political
problem, or a political problem causing a border problem? Where
are the two most populous nations of the world heading in their
relations?
India pointed at the nuclear asymmetry
between the armed forces of China and India, Beijing's close
defense ties with Pakistan and the threat from its missiles to
major Indian cities. Commenting on the annual report of the Indian
Ministry of Defense, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Zhang
Qiyue said, "If both sides adhere to the five principles of
peaceful co-existence, increase trust, strengthen cooperation,
then Sino-Indian relations can continuously develop."1 Indian
Defense Minister George Fernandez made a successful visit to China
in late April 2003. Prime Minister Vajpayee and Chinese President
Hu Jintao met in ST. Petersburg on May 31, 2003, on the sidelines
of the celebrations marking the 300th anniversary of the historic
city. Hu Jintao is also reported to have said, If India and China
can come together, the 21st century will belong to Asia. Prime
Minister of India, A.B. Vajpayee had a successful visit to China
in June 2003.
It is not necessary for Asians to go the
whole hog of experiencing a few devastating wars, which in the
nuclear age could mean total destruction. before they embark on a
path of creating an Asian Union on the pattern of the European
Union. Does history teach us anything at all or is repetition
inevitable? The answer to this may vary according to whether one
believes that history is a circle or a line and whether one
believes in the adage, "History repeats Itself" or in
the opposite one which says: "History never repeats
itself."
Some skeptics may raise the bogey of the
danger to industries of one from the other. Similar bogeys were
raised when imports became freer under WTO regulations. Freer
trade has to take place any way with or without an Asian Union.
What Asian Union may provides is a mechanism for creating
safeguards as happened in Europe when the less developed countries
of South Europe joined or when the countries of the former Soviet
block come in gradually. As UN Development Reports bring out year
after year, the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider
and wider. This can only be reduced or bridged if the poor come
together.
THE MULTIPLIER EFFECT WILL BE POSITIVE
Europe remained in a mess until the big powers of Europe continued
to play games against each other, creating alliance aimed at each
other. The scene only changed when the big powers, initially
Germany, France and Italy, came together to cooperate instead of
confronting each other. Benelux was thrown in for good measure.
The six soon became 9, then 12, then 15, and now 10 more are going
to join in. Some others are still waiting anxiously to join. UK
tried to keep out at various stages but had no choice but to join
in and is now even contemplating joining the common currency.
There is a clear-cut lesson in this for
Asians. Only when the big powers of Asia-China, India, Japan,
Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey come together will the scene change.
Smaller sub-regional alliances can make only a limited or no
impact at all, as illustrated by ASEAN and SAARC respectively. The
same can be said of the Gulf Cooperation Council. ASEAN is
experimenting with various other combinations like ASEAN + 1 or
ASEAN + 2 or ASEAN + 3, but the real combination has yet to come.
ARF (Asian Regional Forum) is a move in the right direction. SAARC
can never take off unless the India - China equation changes and
when that happens if will take off in no time. Apart from ASEAN,
SAARC, Gulf Cooperation Council etc. there are some other laudable
initiatives. The president or Kazakhstan launched an initiative
under the name "Conference on Interaction and Confidence
Building in Asia (CICA) and the Prime Minister of Thailand under
the name of "'Asian Cooperation Dialogue (ACD)." There
is also the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). All these
have to culminate in a dialogue for an Asian body.
There are numerous examples in Europe of the
rush to join the organization after the big powers came together
to form it. As mentioned above, there is a long waiting list of
Candidates. However, to illustrate the point it may be worth
quoting what the Austrian Ambassador in New Delhi, Dr. Herbert
Traxl had to say on this in February 2001.2 He said,
"Austria, as an independent nation, had chosen to keep out of
the European Economic Community for decades and was content with
being a member of the European Free Trade Area. It joined the
community in 1995 when it learnt to perceive the EC as a process
of building peace between nations that had been hostile to each
other for a long time, especially France and Germany, and
establishing a zone of peace and stability". Dr. Traxl was
speaking at a Chamber of Commerce in South India and went on to
say that another reason for Austria's accession to EC was the fact
that it found itself affected by decisions taken by the community
on several issues such as trade and transportation. Austria then
decided it would be better to be "part of the decision making
process itself and find friends and allies in the grouping".
He emphasized the advantages from evolution of collective policies
on issues such as environment, illegal immigration and
international crime, which includes terrorism.2
It follows from the above that if the big
powers of Asia Come together, others will follow, in their own
interest, as happened in Europe.
DIALOGUE OF CIVILIZATIONS SHOULD BEGIN AT ASIAN LEVEL
Islam has become a major issue in
world affairs in the wake of what happened on Sep 11, 2001. The
phrase " clash of civilizations" became a topic of
public discourse dramatically with Samuel Huntington's article of
that title in the summer 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs, published
by the New York based Council for Foreign Relations. Subsequently
Prof. Huntington expanded his article into a book "The Clash
of Civilizations and the Remaking or the World Order",
published in 1996. Huntington's work immediately caught the
imagination of intellectuals all over the world. It was widely
read and debated and there were both supporters and critics.
However the events of Sep. 11, 2001 brought his thesis into sharp
focus.
Huntington defines a civilization as a
culture writ large, involving values, norms, institutions and
modes of thinking to which successive generations in a given
society have attached primary importance. According to him
religion is the defining characteristic of civilization.
Huntington devotes considerable attention to the collision between
Islam and the West. He argues that the absolute nature of Islam
that merges religion and politics, the absence of the concept of
non-violence in that faith and the fact that it lacks one or more
core states that could effectively mediate conflicts have all
combined to make Islam a source of global instability. The
twentieth century conflict between liberal democracy and Marxist -
Leninism is only a fleeting and superficial phenomenon compared to
the continuing and deeply conflictual relation between Islam and
Christianity. Though at times peaceful co-existence has prevailed,
more often the relation has been one of intense rivalry and of
varying degrees of hot war. Bernard Lewis observes: "For
almost a thousand years from the first Moorish landing in Spain to
the second Turkish siege of Vienna, Europe was under constant
threat from Islam." 3
The "Clash of Civilizations," if
one prefers to call it that, has to first be resolved in Asia
itself. It is an axiom of science that an experiment is first
carried out at a smaller scale; the results, if positive, are then
transferred to a larger arena. It is necessary to bring Saudi
Arabia and Iran into a dialogue for an Asian Union as they
represent the sources of Sunni and Shia Islam respectively. The
presence of Turkey, with its comparatively more modern Islamic
institutions and secular outlook, will be of immense help. Imagine
a table with Saudi Arabia, Iran, China, India, Japan, Indonesia,
Turkey and Russia for dialogue, where the civilizations
representing the major religious are seated together. The result
will be a "Dialogue of Civilizations" instead of a
"Clash of Civilizations." In fact the very talk of an
Asian Union will lead to a dialogue between and among
civilizations, so to say. There are extremist elements everywhere,
but equally there are moderate silent majorities. This is why Iran
has been changing. The silent majority in Saudi Arabia should be
enabled to get into the mainstream.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism,
Buddhism, Sikhism, Taoism and Shintoism are all Asian religious.
There is a certain unity in the diversity in them as there is a
common Asian cultural ethos. Once the equilibrium born of that
unity in diversity is implemented at the Asian level, it will be
easy enough to do so at the world scale. If it cannot be done at
the continental level, it definitely cannot be done at
intercontinental level. Therefore the sooner we begin talking
about an Asian Union, the better it is for the whole world.
TACKLING OF TERRORISM WILL BE EASIER WITHAN
ASIAN UNION
The problem of terrorism also has to
be tackled at sub-regional, regional as well as global level. Once
a dialogue begins in Asia for an Asian Union, and countries like
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Pakistan and
Afghanistan are a part of the dialogue, along with other major
powers of Asia like China, India, Japan, Indonesia and to some
extent Turkey and Russia, which are both European and Asian,
discussion on curbing terrorism will be easier and fruitful.
Existence of a mechanism for dealing with Terrorism at the Asian
Continental level will facilitate smoother operation of
anti-terrorist measures and will supplement and reinforce other
efforts at sub-regional and global level. In the long run, this is
the only way to remove the root causes, which have given rise to
terrorism.
Lessons Of The Indian Experience In Tackling
Terrorism At Local Level: - In support of the idea that terrorism
can and should be tackled at various levels, national, sub
regional, regional and global, it may be worth examining how the
Indian approach of keeping the issues localized and finding
political solutions has worked in the past and may work in the
future. India started experiencing terrorism and violence,
sponsored mainly form across the borders, from the very inception
of the country after independence in 1947. First it was in Jammu
and Kashmir and later in the northeast. However, it was the
localized political approach, combined with the principle of unity
in diversity, which led to the situation that Laldenga, who was
leading as insurgency in Mizoram State, gave-up violence and
became Chief Minister of the State. Similarly, the DMK Party in
Tamil Nadu State, which was involved in insurgency in the late
1960s, came to head the state government subsequently. The
Nagaland story is similar, and so are the cases of Manipur in the
1960s and 70s and Punjab in the 80s.
The October 2002 elections in Jammu and
Kashmir have given the state a representative government, which is
trying to give stability to the state in the face of
Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism. The terrorists killed
in Jammu and Kashmir by Indian security forces include people from
Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Yemen, China and Pakistan but the
indigenous involvement in terrorism, which was at its peak in the
early 1990s, came down drastically by the late 1990s. The
empirical evidence collected about the suicidal attacks from 1990
to 2001 in India shows that only in one incident was a local
involved, the rest were all mercenaries.4
Thus to tackle terrorism in Jammu and
Kashmir one would have to have a multiple approach: Political
solution at home and liaison with security agencies in countries
of origin of the mercenaries, in this case Afghanistan, Iraq,
Palestine, Yemen, China and Pakistan. The existence of an Asian
Secretariat with a department handling terrorism would go a long
way in tracking down the sources and plugging them. This approach
can be repeated in other hot spots in Asia, including Palestine.
LESSON OF THE IRAQ WAR: NEED OF AN ASIAN
ORGANIZATION
Before the US led invasion of Iraq,
several justifications were put forward: a preemptive strike at a
tyrant with a record for unprovoked aggression, redrawing the
political map of the Islamic world, control of oil and so on.
Regardless of the right and wrong, it would be prudent to bear in
mind that starting a war is easier than working through its
consequences. The creeping escalation of the war in Vietnam is an
example from America's own history. Beginning with a desire to
help the French, the US got slowly sucked into what one of its own
generals termed a 'quagmire'. Iraq is beginning to look like a
"quagmire" for the US and Britain. US is desperately
trying to bring in troops from other countries, particularly from
Asia. There was a big debate in India on whether to respond to the
US call for sending troops to Iraq, before India decided not to
send troops (July 14, 2003), at the invitation of US and UK, who
are seen as invaders. India, however, expressed willingness to
help under a UN mandate. Similar debates are taking place in other
countries, including Pakistan. Eventually some sort of an Asian
solution will be needed in this part of Asia. Would it not be
better to have an Asian organization to facilitate this? During
the Nato action in Bosnia, it was being said that Europeans should
be asked to handle European problems, instead of another continent
getting involved. The same could be applied here.
DEMOCRACY WILL GET HELP FROM AN ASIAN UNION
Value of democracy: "Democracy
is not an easy road to follow .......... Successful maintenance of
democracy demands the utmost in use of the best available methods
to procure social knowledge that is reasonably commensurate with
our physical knowledge, and the invention and use of forms of
social engineering reasonably commensurate with our technological
abilities in physical affairs."5 Does democracy really exist?
Take the US example and the neo-con agenda. Those opposed to
violence may be in majority but when you come to brass-tacks they
are straws in the wind. What prevails is the neo-con policy. As
Richard Falk said at the second TODA conference on
"Globalization, Regionalization and Democratization" in
Vancouver, Canada, in June 2003, we may be living in"
pseudo-democracies." Political illiteracy of the public
enables Governments to do what they do. He went on to say that 50%
of Americans believe that WMDs were found in Iraq. Forty percent
even believed that Saddam Hussain had used them in this war (2003)
and many believe 9/11 was caused by Iraq. So true democracy is an
illusion. But does that make it irrelevant? The answer is no. The
struggle has to continue and, as John Dewey Suggested, more than
half a century ago, and many others have done, democracy and
education go hand in hand.
Democracy in Asia:
One of the fundamental bases of the European Union is democracy
and the question may be raised that lack of democracy in major
parts of Asia makes an Asian Union unrealistic. However, the
progress of the global community in democracy requires that Asia
keep pace in this sphere. There are several countries in Asia
where different versions of democracy prevail. The largest
democracy in the world, in terms of population, namely India, is
in Asia. In fact many scholars agree that the single greatest
achievement of India, since gaining independence in 1947, is the
preservation of democracy. It is perhaps true that democracy has
preserved India. The reason why a multi-racial, multi-religious,
multi-lingual country of more than a billion people is holding
together, while smaller entities like Yugoslavia had broken up, is
the existence of democracy in India. Pakistan, which was founded
on the basis of Islam, by partitioning India, lost half of the
country in 1971-72 because democracy was not allowed to prevail;
if the verdict of the elections of 1971 had been respected in the
then Pakistan, even with two geographically distant wings, the
country may have survived and there would be no Bangladesh.
Improved Prospects of Democracy with an
Asian Union: There are many factors
promoting democracy in Asia, in different parts, and one of the
avowed purposes of the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was
also to promote democracy. But even a loose " Asian
Union" is bound to prove infections, carrying Democracy from
the democratic to the others in a peaceful interaction. In
centuries gone by, China sent scholars to India to learn the
authentic Buddhist Sutras. The Chinese economy has changed
fundamentally; it is no longer a communist economy. Can a
capitalist economy and a totalitarian political system co-exist?
Change is inevitable. An Asian Union Could direct that changes
into the right direction. India, in turn, could imbibe some of the
Confucian values, which have benefited China, Singapore, and some
others.
Islam Not Hampering Democracy:
Equally important is the case of West Asia. Are Islam and
Democracy incompatible? There are some who believe so. But true
Islam and democracy are not incompatible. The largest Muslim
country in the world is Indonesia. It has a democratic framework.
The second largest is India as it has more Muslims than any other
country except Indonesia, including Pakistan and Bangladesh. The
Muslims of India have become an integral part of the democratic
framework. Bangladesh is doing reasonably well. Turkey is a good
example. The problem in Pakistan is the vested interest of the
military, deriving sustenance from US support at various times.
The brief periods when democracy prevailed in Pakistan, under
civilian control, were also the periods when relations between
India and Pakistan showed signs of improvement. Solution to
problems in West Asia also lies in democracy.
As Fouad Ajami said in his article entitled
"Iraq and the Arabs' Futures", in Foreign Affairs
magazine for Jan/Feb 2003, "Thus far the United State has
been simultaneously an agent of political reaction and a promoter
of social revolution in the Arab-Muslim world .............. Its
power has invariably been on the side of political reaction and
stagnant status quo. " The middle classes and professionals
in these countries have been thwarted by the US relationships of
convenience with the autocracies in saddle. This has hampered the
growth of democracy, not Islam."
Even 9/11 is a bi-product of these same US
polices. The targeting of America came out of the terrible
political culture of Arab Lands. If the leader of the Egyptian
Islamic Jihad, the physician Ayman al-Zawahiri, could not avenge
himself against the military regime of Hosni Mubarak for the
torture he endured at the hand of his country's security services,
why not target Mubarak's U.S. patrons? A Similar motivation
propelled the Saudi members of Al Qaeda. "These men could not
sack the house of Saud ............ the war against America was
the next best thing."6
As Bergen Bergen points out in his book on
Osama Bin Laden, Laden's anger was not at America's decadent
culture, but at the support America gave to the regime in Riyadh.
After nearly six decades in Saudi Arabia and three in Egypt, what
America has earned is the wrath and estrangement of the frustrated
middle class. There is an unfathomable anti-Americanism in
Egypt-even among those professionals who have done well through
the American connection. America is also in for a bitter harvest
in Iraq, judging by the number of casualties, even since the
official end to the hostilities. The sooner America and UK get out
of Iraq, after handing over charge to an Asian force, perhaps
under U.N. auspices, since there is no Asian Union as yet, the
better for them. In fact a factor, which enabled Saddam Hussain to
emerge as some kind of a "pan-Arab Bismarck", was US
backing of conservative Arab regimes and the bias in favor of
Israel. U.S. role in creation of the Taliban in Afghanistan is
well documented. As also mentioned above, in Pakistan, U.S.
support to the military regimes, over a long period, has thwarted
democracy, not Islam.
SOLUTION OF VARIOUS CONFLICTS IN ASIA WILL
BE EASIER WITH AN ASIAN UNION
There are several cold and semi -
hot was within sub regions of Asia, as between Indian and
Pakistan, between Israel and Palestine, between, Japan and Korea
and between the two Koreas. These will subside once the dialogue
for an Asian Union begins. The fact that both UK and Ireland are
members of the European Union has had a positive effect on the
Northern Ireland conflict. Similarly, the fact that Greece is in
the European Union and Turkey is an aspiring member of the
European Union also has had a positive effect on the Cyprus
problem, which could otherwise have taken a worse shape. Further,
We can only imagine various other conflicts, which could have
arisen in Western Europe, if there were no EEC/EU for the last 58
years, since the end of the Second World War.
Kashmir: Let
us take a brief look at how the prospect of an Asian Union may
help in resolving some of the conflicts in Asia. We could begin
with the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan. Kashmir is a
symptom, not the disease affecting Indo-Pak relations. For more
than half a century, efforts have been made to tackle Kashmir in a
wrong way. Ask any doctor and he/she will say straightway that
what needs treatment is the disease and not the symptoms. The
disease to be treated is the partition of India on a communal
basis. Pakistan says Kashmir is the core issue for it and India
has repeatedly made the point that it is a symbol of India's
secularism. It is a core issue for Pakistan because the very
survival of a country founded on the basis of Islam depends on
asserting its right to a Muslim majority area bordering it. But
Kashmir acceded to India legally as did 500 other former princely
states at the time of independence. If Kashmir's accession is
questioned then the whole post-independence legal framework is put
in jeopardy. But there is another crucial factor for India. There
are nearly 140 million Muslims spread all over India and their
future is linked with what happens to Kashmir. Thus Kashmir
becomes a core issue for Indian secularism. As already mentioned
above, there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan or
Bangladesh.
Asian Union may help in resolving some of
the conflicts in Asia. We could begin with the Kashmir issue
between India and Pakistan. Kashmir is a symptom, not the disease
affecting Indo-Pak relations. For more than half a century,
efforts have been made to tackle Kashmir in a wrong way. Ask any
doctor and he/she will say straightway that what needs treatment
is the disease and not the symptoms. The disease to be treated is
the partition of India on a communal basis. Pakistan says Kashmir
is the core issue for it and India has repeatedly made the point
that it is a symbol of India's secularism. It is a core issue for
Pakistan because the very survival of a country founded on the
basis of Islam depends on asserting its right to a Muslim majority
area bordering it. But Kashmir acceded to India legally as did 500
other former princely states at the time of independence. If
Kashmir's accession is questioned then the whole post-independence
legal framework is put in jeopardy. But there is another crucial
factor for India. There are nearly 140 million Muslims spread all
over India and their future is linked with what happens to
Kashmir. Thus Kashmir becomes a core issue for Indian secularism.
As already mentioned above, there are more Muslims in India than
in Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad was born in Mecca
to Arab Parents. He came to India and became totally Indian. He
identified himself completely with the political aspirations of
the Indian nationalists. He was deadly opposed to the partition.
Delivering the presidential address at the Ramgarh session of the
Indian National Congress before independence, he proudly
proclaimed: "I am a Muslim and am profoundly conscious of the
fact that I have inherited Islam's glorious traditions ... I am
not prepared to lose even a small part of that legacy ... I am
equally proud of the fact that I am an Indian, an essential part
of that indivisible unity of Indian nationhood." He was
sensitive to the fact that partition would bring about
incalculable harm to the minorities in both countries. With
prophetic vision, the Maulana told the Cabinet Mission in 1946
"I have examined its likely effect upon the fortunes of
Muslims in India... I have come to the conclusion that it is
harmful not only for India as a whole, but also for Muslims in
particular. And in fact it creates more problems that it solves.
Two states confronting one another offer no solution to the
problems of another's minorities but only lead to retribution and
reprisals by introducing a system of mutual hostages."7
We cannot and need not undo the partition,
but it needs treatment. A positive approach would suggest some
kind of a Common Market, South Asian Union, of a Confederation in
the Sub-continent. Just as Alsace Lorraine and the Rhur area,
which was the bone of contention between France and Germany,
became the starting point of the European Coal and Steel
Community, which eventually led to the European Union; Kashmir,
presently a bone of contention between India and Pakistan could
become the cement to join the two.
In 1962, when the well-known economist, John
Kenneth Galbraith was the U.S. Ambassador in Delhi, and John F.
Kennedy in the White House in Washington, there was a good deal of
diplomatic activity in the wake of the Sino-Indian border war. The
Americans were anxious to help, especially to prevent any
enlargement of the conflict in the Himalayas through entry of
Pakistan into it. On December 6, 1962, Galbraith wrote to
Kennedy," In my view, incidentally, Kashmir is not soluble in
territorial terms. But by holding up the example of the way in
which France and Germany have moved to soften their antagonism by
the Common Market and common instruments of administration,
including such territorial disputes as that over the Saar, there
is a chance of getting the Indo-Pakistan dialogue into
constructive channels."8 As per diary of Galbraith quoted in
his "Ambassador's Journal," published in 1969, Nehru
also agreed with Galbraith that the only solution to the Kashmir
problem was some sort of a Common Market in the sub-continent, on
the European track.
The Sub-region of South Asia has many
complementarities. Historical, geographical, economic, cultural
and linguistic factors all point to need for coming together,
which will solve not only the problem between India &
Pakistan, but also those relating to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. As
already mentioned above in another context, the South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) has not made much
headway so far, but will take off amazingly once there is a
positive Asian level dialogue and the equations change among the
major powers of Asia, especially those between India and China and
between India and the major Muslim countries of West Asia. This
can happen through a dialogue for an Asian Union.
Palestine: The
Israeli-Palestinian problem has also lasted more than half a
century. Various efforts, over the years, have failed and the
bloodshed continues. So does the suffering of millions. There are
some similarities between the partition of Palestine and the
Indian sub-continent. Just as Pakistan was created on the basis of
Islam, Israel was created on the basis of Judaism. Both partitions
led to large-scale movement of populations and many massacres.
Just as India was left with a sizeable Muslim population, Israel
was left with a sizeable Muslim Arab population, which has been
growing and is like a time-bomb for the state based on Judaism.
Here too the partition cannot be undone, but needs treatment.
Any viable road map would have to be
integrative rather than divisive. The problem of the occupied
territories, of the Arab population in Israel, which cannot
forever remain as second - class citizenry, of the Palestinian
refugees abroad, the case of Jerusalem, the Israeli settlements in
occupied areas, all need to be addressed in a comprehensive,
forward looking plan, in consonance with the democratic spirit of
the 21 Century. This is only possible within the framework of a
macro approach. Just as dialogue for an Asian Union is bound to
have a positive impact on South Asia, it will have a healthy and
salutary effect on the most difficult and long-standing issue in
West-Asia, namely the Palestinian - Israeli conflict, which, at
other levels, is an Arab-Israeli and a Jewish - Muslim problem.
Ironically, 9/11 may have paved the way for a solution because
some of the Arab countries and Iran, which earlier swore by a
policy towards total annihilation of the state of Israel, are now
inclined to adopt a more moderate approach, if the legitimate
interests and rights of the Palestinian people are protected.
Korea and Others:
In East Asia too, there are legacies of discord. Apart from the
partition of Korea, which is threatening to blow up into a nuclear
menace, there is a past history of rancor between Korea and Japan,
China and Japan, Russia and Japan and Russia and China. These can
all submerge in a dialogue for an Asian Union, as happened with
various historical rivalries, discords and negative memories among
countries of Europe in the context of the European Union.
ACTION AT MICRO AND MACRO LEVELS NOT ANTI-THETICAL
Cooperation at the Asian continental
level is not antithetical to organizations at sub-regional level,
or to cooperation at the Global level. Regional and sub-regional
cooperation can reinforce each other and the two together can be
intermediary to Global cooperation. They are like building blocks
at different levels. The whole body has no healthy existence
without healthy parts and parts are healthy only when the whole
body is healthy. While in relation to sub-regions like Asean,
SAARC, SCO etc. it is macro level, in relation to global dialogue,
dialogue at the Asian level is the micro level.
GLOBALIZATION VS. BALANCE OF POWER- THE
LATTER STILL RELEVANT
We live in times when the word
"Globalization" is a part of everyday vocabulary. To be
a part of everyday vocabulary is not the same things as common
sense. However, the discovery of today is the accepted fact of
tomorrow and the commonsense of the day after. The revolution in
communications and travel could not but result in a global
society. Moreover, world economy is inextricably interlinked and
operates on all continents simultaneously. The ideal form for
today's world would be a "World Federation" or
"Global Union", but that is still for the day after.
Today we have to restore a certain balance, which maintained world
peace for long stretches of time in different periods of history.
It is true that balance of power systems
have existed only at certain times in history and for the greater
part of history, empire has been the typical mode for the world
system. As Henry Kissinger points out in his book
"Diplomacy", "Empires have no interest in operating
within an international system; they aspire to be the
international system. Empires have no need for a balance of power.
That is how the United State has conducted its foreign policy in
the Americas, and China through most of its history in Asia".
But in the 21st Century the very thought of an Empire running the
world is highly repugnant. We are in an era, which was preceded by
a long history of colonialism, imperialism, exploitation and a
worldwide anti-colonial and anti-imperialist phase. There is no
going back to the Era of Empires. 9/11 and the continued killing
of soldiers in Iraq, after May 1st 2003, when the operation was
officially declared over, are chilling reminders that the era of
empires is gone.
So if the imperial system is a thing of the
past and a democratic Global Union is still far off, perhaps for a
few decades, if not a century or two, the only alternative is to
bring about some form of the balance of power system. At the same
time, a bi-polar world of the type, which existed during the cold
war, cannot be imagined today. Thus the only feasible model is of
a multi-polar world. Two poles are already visible, namely America
and Europe. Africa is formally a Union but its capacity to play
the role of another pole is obviously too little at present.
It has also been shown above, why Asia has
to be taken as a whole, and not in parts, because that would be
dangerous not only for Asia but for the whole world. China,
Russia, India or Japan can play the role of a viable 3rd pole only
If all of them or some of them join hands along with other Asian
countries, as happened in Europe. So a tri-polar world is more
viable for the near future than either a bi-polar or a multi-polar
one. The spilt in Europe during the Iraq crisis and the existence
of the Atlantic Alliance show that the role of Europe in this
world order is not exactly that of a pole to balance America. That
balance has to come from somewhere else. It could be from Asia or
a combination of Asia, Africa and parts of Europe. A third force
is usually a positive element even in the domestic politics of
nations having the two-party system, as e.g. in Germany, U.K. and
France and in the emerging order in India. This holds a lesson
even for the international system. But this tri-polar system will
not have the rigidity of the cold-war bi-polar system. What we are
looking forward to is not another cold war. It will have scope for
evolution, combinations and permutations to suit particular needs,
situations and crises.
Paul Kennedy's study of "The Rise and
Fall of the Great Powers" analyzed economic change and
military conflict from 1500 to 1988. The chief message of his
study was that "the international system is subject to
constant changes, not only those caused by the day-to-day actions
of statesman and the ebb and flow of political and military
events, but also those caused by the deeper transformations in the
foundations of world power, which in time make their way through
to the surface." Surprisingly, he spoke of the 'pentarchy' of
the United States, the USSR, China, Japan and the E.E.C. as the
likely pattern for some time to come, just on the eve of the
collapse of the communist empire and the USSR. This fallacy
occurred because he was making an assertion in contradiction to
his own sound discovery after study of 500 years of history,
regarding the crucial relevance of global productive balances,
technological innovation and military spending, in the rise and
fall of the great powers. It may be worth repeating here
Bismarck's famous remark about protagonists of an international
system that they travel on "the stream of Time", which
they can "neither create not direct", but upon which
they can "steer with more or less skill and
experience."9 The lesson to be learnt is that the balance of
power in world affairs has to be reinvented in different epochs.
UNO NOT YET READY TO PROVIDE A NEW WORLD
ORDER
Is UN the answer in seeking the new
world order, instead of a new balance through a tri-polar /
multi-polar world? The reality has been thrown sharply into our
faces during the recent Iraq crisis. However, we have to say,
"the UN is dead, long live the UN", because UN has
several other roles to play. If there were no UN, we would have to
invent one. The role of specialized Agencies of the UN and certain
peacekeeping operations are commendable but in key political
issues, UN has had a very limited role.
Useful Role of Specialized Agencies: There
would be total chaos in the rapidly globalizing world if the
various Specialized Agencies of the UN did not regulate various
things. Air travel on the world-scale would be in total mess, with
planes colliding every now and then if the "Civil Aviation
Orgaization" was not there to regulate things. Communications
would be in total disarray if the "International
Telecommunications Organization" did not exist. World health
would be in serious jeopardy, as the recent SARS crisis showed,
and various other epidemics have shown over the years, if there
was no WHO. International trade world be in a state of perpetual
trade wars if there were no WTO or its predecessors. The list is
endless. Then there are institutions like UNESCO, UNICEF, ECOSOC
and the various Economics Commissions for different parts of the
world.
Some Useful Peacekeeping Operations:
UN has also played a role from time to time in peacekeeping in
different parts of the world. On May 29, 2003, an
"International Day of United Nations Peace-keepers" was
observed, in pursuance of resolution 57/129 of the UN General
Assembly, adopted at the 57th Session, on 11 December 2002. On
that day, 55 years ago, the first UN peacekeeping operation, UN
Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) in the Middle East was
established. More than half a century later, that operation is
still going on. In 1949, UNMOGIP (UN Military Observation Group
for India and Pakistan) was created, after India took the issue of
Pakistani aggression in Kashmir to the U.N. That group still
exists in a skeleton form. With the outbreak of the Cold War, the
UN Charter's concept of collective security collapsed in the face
of political realities. As Starcevic put it, "the enforcement
action in Korea, a hybrid between the 'coalition of the willing'
of the time and the Security Council's application of Chapter VII
of the Charter brought in its wake the 'Uniting for peace'
resolution, which formed the basis for the first real peacekeeping
operation in 1956."10
On the whole, collective security did not
work during the cold war, though one among thirteen PKOs
(Peace-keeping Operations) established between 1948 and 1978, the
one in Congo, came close to enforcement action and, in all
likelihood, "cost the life of the activist Secretary-General
Dag Hammarskjold". The decade of 1978-88 passed with no new
PKO devised. Since the end of the Cold War, the system of
collective security has worked on some occasions and failed on
others. Cambodia is an example of the former, Yugoslavia,
Afghanistan and now Iraq of the latter.
In Critical Issues UN is Like a Sweeper in a
Circus: At crucial moments, in the
face of key issues, the UN had to make way for an alternate
international system and its role was confined to taking care of
the humanitarian problems left behind by the actions of the powers
that be. Mushirul Hassan put it strikingly in his April 2003
article entitled, "The New Colours of Imperialism":
"The US has cleared its arrears to that body, so declared
Colin Powell at a recent press conference, and it was time for its
functionaries to press on with their humanitarian work and not
meddle in American affairs. His arrogant and patronizing tone must
have added to Kofi Annan's sleepless nights."11 The
humanitarian role of the UN. is of course important. In a circus,
after an act by a group of elephants or other animals, a sweeper
has to appear and clean up the mess left behind. In critical
issues, the U.N. has a similar role. It has to take care of all
the humanitarian issues, the refugees, the prisoners and so on,
left behind by the actions of major power. The circus goes on.
Can a Reformed U.N. help?
There is much talk of a reformed U.N.O. as the solution to the
problem of world governance. It is rightly said that a system
devised 58 years ago, on the basis of the outcome of the Second
World War does not reflect the reality of the present day world.
This is very true. The Security Council is an outdated body. There
is a good case for its expansion. Names of countries like Germany,
Japan, India, Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa etc. have been
mentioned as permanent members. But there is no real move by any
Permanent Member, nor will they give up their own Veto Power or
add new members with Veto Power. That brings us back to square
one. UN is an inter-governmental organization and in the final
analysis governments conduct their policies on the basis of
national interest. Revision of the UN charter will only be
possible when the power equations change in the world, not vice
versa. It will be easier to revise the UN charter, if their is an
Asian Union in Asia, as there is an European Union in Europe and
not vice versa. It is a question of Idealism vs. Realism.
ASIAN UNION WILL BE GOOD FOR ALL
In The Interest Of It Would Be The US:
After this survey one may ask, what is in it for me? Why should
the U.S. the only Super Power, go out of its way to create another
center of power? We have seen above that the era of imperialism is
gone forever. In the complex world of today, it is impossible for
any one state, however powerful, to dominate it. As Jonathan
Schell says, "the larger question, facing not only the United
State but any country that might be eager to establish an empire
is whether the connection between military and political
power-snapped by the world revolt of the 20th century-can be
restored. Does power still flow from the barrel of a gun or a B-52
bomber? Can the world in the twenty-first century be ruled from
35,000 feet? Can cruise missiles build nations? Modern people have
the will to resist and the means to do so. Force can confer a
temporary advantage, but politics is destiny."12
It would be in the interest of the United
State to encourage and help in the formation of an Asian Union.
Only a shortsighted view will find fault with the suggestion or
harbor suspicions or apprehensions of creating a rival center of
power. The U.S. helped in the creation of what is today the
European Union. It must have known then that there would be times
when differences of opinion may arise between the US and the new
entity, but the balance was in favor of a positive approach, which
has proved to be sound.
Because of the size of the Asian continent,
the diversity of races, religions, cultures and languages, and
various historical elements, an Asian body, call it an "Asian
Union" for the sake of identification, on the pattern already
known and existing, will be a loose organization. It cannot have,
in the foreseeable future, the cohesion of a strong international
persona with the potential to assume an aggressive international
role. It may function as clearing house for solving Asian problems
of all kinds - political, economic, defense and terrorism related,
of transport and communication, of health and epidemics, of
culture and religion and so on, at the Asian level, without
jeopardizing the peace, tranquility and interests of the people of
other continents. It is said that US wants to transform Europe
into a loose body by supporting its expansion through inclusion of
more and more countries, specially in the east, earlier part of
the Soviet System. The solution sought in Europe already exists in
Asia. It can only be a loose body.
Further, if the US helps in the creation of
an 'Asian Union' in Asia, the charge of "unilateralism"
and imperialistic ambitions, which is heard more and more, will go
away There will be less or no risk of getting stuck in quagmires
far away from home. There will be an additional mechanism for
tackling Asian conflicts and terrorism emanating from Asia.
Then there is the economic angle. Eric
Hobsbauwm argues that with the exception of its military
superiority in high-tech weaponry, the U.S. is relying on
diminishing, or potentially diminishing, assets. Its economy,
though large, forms a diminishing share of the global economy. It
is vulnerable in the short term as well as in the long term. At
some stage it will be obvious that it is much more important to
concentrate on the economy than to carry on with foreign military
adventures, especially with unemployment at an eight-year high.
E.U. will also benefit from an Asian Union:
For the European Union too, it may be useful in the long run to
have a sister in an Asian Union. Both "old Europe" and
"new Europe" have an interest in a smooth and peaceful
management of world affairs. Playing Asian countries against one
another is a thing of the past and exploiting rivalries among or
between any of them can be dangerous or counter-productive, as can
be seen from the history of the Indo-Pak conflict, the
Arab-Israeli conflict, the saga of Sino-Japanese or Korean
relations and so on.
Russia, Turkey and Egypt can be links
with other Continents: Russia is in a very special position,
being both in Europe and Asia, and so is Turkey. Egypt is in a
similar position between Asia and Africa. In the final analysis,
all boundaries are artificial and the designation of the Urals as
the dividing line between European Russia and Asian Russia is the
same. But for historical and practical reasons, we have to accept
these divisions, without losing sight of the essential unity. New
Russia can play the role of a crucial link between the two
sub-continents of Eurasia. History shows vividly the role of
Russia in the fate of Europe, whether in the era of Napoleon or
Hitler, or the half-century after the Second World War. Lessons of
the past can be ignored only at peril both for the present and the
future. That the geo-political role of Russia in Asia is of a
crucial nature is obvious. It has played a balancing role between
India and China, the two most populous nations of the world and
will continue to play an important role in central, southern and
eastern Asia. Turkey may be a candidate for the European Union,
but the larger part of its territory is in Asia and the
geographical, historical, economic and cultural links, especially
with central and western Asia overshadow its European ambitions.
It can also be a positive link between Europe and Asia, which it
literally is.
Importance of an Asian Union for Africa
and Australasia: Africa and Asia have been arm-in-arm in the
struggle against Imperialism, Colonialism and Racialism. During
the cold war, their cooperation flourished under the banner on the
"non-alignment movement". Some say that movement has
lost its relevance after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
end of the cold war. Some others, however, believe that the basic
ideals and principles of that movement have become more relevant
after loss of the balance of power existing then. In the political
sphere, that movement enabled small, weak and poor countries to
safeguard their dignity, independence and the freedom to pursue
their own independent foreign policies. The need for such a
safeguard still exists, and may have become greater in the face of
the threat of "unilateralism" of the single Super Power.
In the economic sphere, that movement rallied countries of the so
called "Third World" in a struggle for a just
international economic order, against the growing disparity
between the rich and the poor, the north and the south. Those
problems still exist and are becoming more acute by the day.
Ultimately, peace and tranquility in the world also depend on a
just and equitable economic order. No on is going to gift such an
order to any one. Only concerted action by the have-nots will lead
to amelioration in their situation. Then there is the forgotten
issue of disarmament, without which there can be no fair
allocation of the resources of the planet. So in the struggle in
all these issues, concerted cooperation between the African Union
and a future Asian Union can play a significant role.
Australasia has a role similar to that of
Russia, Turkey and Egypt, as a link between continents, as
Australia and New Zealand are ethnically more European but
geographically close to Asia.
ASIAN RELATIONS CONFERENCE OF 1947 ANDITS
40th ANNIVERSARY IN 1987
The first " Asian Relations
Conference" was held in New Delhi in March 1947, even before
India achieved independence. Bidding farewell to the delegates,
Mrs. Sarojini Naidu of India had said,"we have set the great
wheel of destiny in motion again and the hands of time will not
stop the revolution of the wheel. In years to come ......... the
work we have done today will remain, will survive and will be the
beacon star to all those who seek freedom, fellowship,
equality...."13 The expectations arising from that conference
were not to be immediately realized. The newly independent
countries of Asia had to go through difficult periods of conflict
and tension. The cold war following the end of the Second World
War led to various alliances and entanglements, which kept Asian
counties far apart and even raised high barriers among them.
Fortunately that cold war is over.
It may be appropriate to mention that in
October 1987, an " Asian Relations Commemorative
Conference" was held in New Delhi to observe the 40th
anniversary of the first Asian Relations Conference of 1947, to
consider once again the question of Asian countries working in
tandem for common causes. Curiously, this commemorative conference
was held just on the eve of the end of the cold war between the
West and the Soviet Union which had interrupted the coming
together of the Asian countries, At that time no one believed that
the fall of the Berlin wall was imminent. Intellectuals, scholars,
artists, and public figures from all over Asia attended the
Commemorative Conference. The initiative for this Conference had
also come from India. A National Steering Committee had been
formed and the then Vice-President of India, Shri R. Venkatraman,
was its first Chairman. When he became President, his successor,
Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma took over the Chairmanship.
Speaking at the inaugural ceremony, the then
Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, said, "at the Asian
Relations Conference (of 1947) Nehru brushed aside apprehensions
that the gathering of Asians was directed against any other
continent or people. In the most famous passage of his speech, he
pointed out: "For far too long we of Asia have been
petitioners in Western courts and chancelleries. That story must
belong to the past", and added: "We have no desire
against anybody, ours is the great design of promoting peace and
progress all over the world... It is the same message, which we
send again to all the continents of the world as we gather
together at the Commemorative Conference. " Later he said,
" The Asian drama continues, a drama of swift change, drama
of self-discovery and of self-assertion. The Asian dilemma also
continues, the dilemma of modernization, without sacrificing what
is valuable in our tradition, the essential Asian challenge lies
in reconciling change with continuity."14 The then Vice
President of India, Dr. Shankar Dayal Sharma, said at the opening
ceremony on 2 October, which also marked the anniversary of the
birth of Mahatma Gandhi: " As Asia comes into its own, and
regains the due position, not just the problems of Asia, but also
those of the world, will find Asian solutions."
TIME FOR ANOTHER ASIAN RELATIONS CONFRENCE,
PERHAPS ON THE 60th ANNIVERSERY IN 2007
It is time to pick up the threads of
1947 and 1987 now and weave a new tapestry, which will also take
in various other threads started in the meantime by the wheel of
time. These are the various initiatives at regional or
sub-regional cooperation in Asia, mentioned above in the section
entitled "The Multiplier Effect." (See page 3). ASEAN,
SAARC, ARF, GCC, CICA, ACD and SCO and all other similar efforts
have to culminate in dialogue for an Asian body. The year 2007
will mark the 60th anniversary of the first Asian Relation
Conference held in New Delhi. It would be appropriate to use this
occasion for launching an "Asian Union", "Economic
Community", or "Organization of Asian Unity". India
took the initiative in 1947 and 1987, and could do the same in
2007, for reasons both of history and geography.
If one looks at the world map, India is
right in the center of Asia. Historically, from times immemorial,
India has interacted in a positive manner with the rest of Asia,
from the time of the great Buddha, through the Middle Ages in the
era of Islamic domination, to the anti-colonial struggle of the
modern times. India should fulfill her destiny.
However, this is not just India's destiny,
but of Asia as a whole. Therefore, any other country is equally
qualified and entitled to take the new initiative before, in or
after 2007. Smaller countries of Asia will have a major stake in
the future Asian Union, as the smaller countries of Europe have in
Europe. The headquarters of EU are not in Berlin, Paris or London,
but in Brussels. Many Asian cities will be in line for that role.
To mention a few, Manila, Bangkok, Singapore, Katmandu, Dubai,
Bahrain are all potential seats of institutions of the future
Asian Union. Even a united Jerusalem will have a major role to the
immense benefit of both Israelites and Arabs.
NOTES ON REFERENCES
1. "Don't see us as a Threat:
Beijing Tells New Delhi," Hindustan Times, 6 June 03.
2. "European Community, a Process of Building Peace,"
the Hindu 21-2-2001
3. Quoted by Huntington.
4. "Tackling Terror", T. Sreedhar, The Hindu 31-01-03
5. "Democratic Faith and Education," John Dewey, 1944.
6. Fouad Ajami, "Iraq and the Arabs' Future," Foreign
Affairs January-February. 03
7. "Asian Annual 2002", Mahabir Singh, Editor, Shipra
Publications, Delhi.
8. "Ambassador's Journal", Galbraith, 1969
9. "Bismarck and the Development of Germany", Pflanze.
10. Speech of the Director of UN Information Center in New Delhi,
29 May 2003, at the observance of International Day of United
Nations' Peacekeepers.
11. "The New Colours of Imperialism". Mushirul Hasan,
The Hindu 19 April 2003
12. "The World Order After Iraq", Prem Bhatia Memorial
Lecture by Hon. Lakshman Kadirgamar, Former Foreign Minister of
Sri Lanka, New Delhi, 11August 2003.
13. "Asian Relations", edited by Eric Gonsalves and
published by India International Center, New Delhi, 1991.
14. - Do
15. -Do -
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
"The Struggle for the Mastery
of Europe", A.J.P. Taylor, 1954.
"The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World
Order",
Samuel P. Huntington, 1996.
"Problems of Men", John Dewey, Philosophical Library,
1946.
"Fascism", Jhelu Jhelev", former President of
Bulgaria.
"Iraq and the Arabs' Future", Fouad Ajami, Foreign
Affairs, Jan.- Feb.2003
"Osama Bin Laden", Bergen Bergen.
"Ambassador's Journal", John Kenneth Galbraith, 1969.
"Diplomacy", Henry Kissinger 1994.
"The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers", Paul Kennedy,
1988.
"The Sino-Soviet Dispute", John Gittings, 1968
"The Sino-Soviet Conflict", Donald S. Zagoria, 1962.
"Shattered World Order", Manoj Joshi, Time of India, 14
Feb. 2003.
"European Community, a Process of Building Peace,"The
Hindu, 21 Feb 2001
"Do not Write the UN Off", Chinmaya R. Gharekhan, The
Hindu, New Delhi, 4 April 2003.
Documents of the "Asian Social Forum" Conference in
Hyderabad, India, January 03.
"Asia Co-operation Dialogue - The New Asian Realism"
address by Prime Minister of Thailand at the East Asia Economic
Summit, 2002,
