War on Terrorism Has Deadly Consequences All Over the World
By Kevin Paulraj
Opinions Writer

It is appropriate to examine the fallout of the “War against Terrorism,” one year after the war began, in five crucial regions of the world: India/Pakistan, Russia/Chechnya, Israel/Palestine, Southeast Asia, and the Arab world at large. Though the United States may or may not have intended these consequences, they figure crucially in the future of these regions, and may lead to more state repression, violence and destabilization in the next few years. A new world order is being formed, where nation-states have more military power than ever before, but a hierarchy of states is clear; atop sit the five permanent members of the UN, with the US reserving for itself the emperor’s throne.

After the guerilla attacks, the United States rushed to support Russia, a major power in Central Asia and a permanent member of the UN, asking in turn for its support in George Bush’s crusade against evil. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin smiled, pointed to Chechnya and said, “Here are our own ‘terrorists.’ If you stop talking about human right violations in Chechnya, we will support your war.” Sure enough, all of a sudden the US stopped talking about “the peace process” in Chechnya or human rights violations (not to mention extreme repression) by the Russian army, and the Russian government was given full legitimacy. Track the military advances: in the last 12 months (corresponding with US aggression), the Russian government has stepped up its military advances in Chechnya. A sad result, not just for the Chechen people but also for the over one hundred hostages who, in Chechnya’s response to those advances, were recently killed.

Meanwhile, in Israel, Ariel Sharon was quick to brand groups such as Hamas and basically all of his opponents in Palestine as Islamic terrorists. Here was an opportunity to turn the tables on the growing international sympathy for the Palestinian plight, demonstrated by the discussions in the UN conference on racism in September 2001. Track the military advances: Israel carried out its strongest attack on Palestine in recent years when it laid siege to the Bethlehem church, prompting even Generalissimo El Busho (George W. Bush) to ask Ariel Sharon nicely to withdraw in April 2002. A nice request was all that Bush would make; nonetheless, Jerry Falwell and 100,000 of his supporters, along with Israeli groups in the United States, quickly rallied behind the Zionist cause and Sharon was allowed to continue the offensive. Notice that before September 11, 2001, the peace talks between Arafat and Sharon seemed to be failing, but at least there were talks. Since September 11, there have been no peace talks between them, period.

India jumped at the opportunity the “War on Terrorism” provided as well, prodding the United States to brand Pakistan a terrorism-sponsoring state—specifically in the region of Kashmir, the site of India-Pakistan territorial wars for over 50 years. But since Pakistan was a new friend to the US, there was no way the US was going to listen to India. Plus, India does not hold veto power at the UN. So in a fit of rage, the Indian government decided to take matters into its own hands and send a massive number of troops and weapons to the Pakistani border. Toward the end of 2001, countries across the world were biting their fingernails, fearing an India-Pakistan nuclear war. Simultaneously, the Indian government saw this as a chance to use the catch phrase “terrorism” to promulgate new domestic laws, including POTA, which I mentioned in last week’s column. Tracking arrests under that act, we find that religious minorities and opposition parties have been singled out and their leaders arrested, in an attempt by the Indian government to gain a stranglehold on power.

Meanwhile, in Southeast Asia, the United States began training Filipino soldiers in January 2002 to fight a rag-tag group of about one hundred Islamic guerillas headed by Abu Sayyef. Bad idea. Not only have the Filipino military and its U.S. advisors failed to contain Abu Sayyef, but as John Aglionby of the Guardian newspaper points out, elements of other armed groups in the southern Philippines have suddenly started a new campaign of violence, including the Moro National Liberation Front, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, and the New People’s Army. Instead of eradicating its namesake, the US “War on Terrorism” has created more potential anti-US terrorists, ready to commit acts such as the recent bombing of resort in Bali. Meanwhile, in the Arab world, people are truly beginning to fear a US war against Islam and a re-colonization of the Middle East. These sentiments are only natural, given the US’s recent plans to attack Iraq and replace Saddam Hussein. All across the globe, Muslims are getting more and more impatient with the arrogant attitude of the US, raising the appeal of religious fundamentalism in many countries, and, quite sadly, increasing the chances of another attack on the United States.

The “War on Terrorism” has also caused a shift in the balance of power across the world. On a global scale, “multilateralism” now means that the wishes of only five countries—China, Russia, France, the United States and Britain—are respected, because they hold crucial UN veto powers. The remaining countries can go along, or go to hell. On a regional scale, the governments of Russia, India and the Philippines, among others, have increased their power with respect to internal opposition, and localized power has given way to a slightly stronger state. This means that regional power equations have been upset, and repressive governments have become the norm. As Arundhati Roy points out, now more than ever the US is relying on repressive regimes in various parts of the of the world to protect its interests and carry out its dirty work. Bush’s position implicitly favors repression. But the reality of the situation is that the US can never control everything perfectly (just look at the shambles the Afghan government is in today, one year after being placed in power). A Christian and a Muslim start a fight in a street, somewhere, one shouting “terrorist” and the other shouting “imperialist dog”…. This is the real consequence of Bush’s war.