Better to steer clear of small wars
 
Philip Bowring International Herald Tribune
Thursday, June 13, 2002
Focus on the big picture
 
HONG KONG The past few days have seen two examples of the exercise of U.S. power. They are a reminder that great powers should steer clear of small wars and concentrate on strategic tasks which maximize long-term benefit to themselves and the world.
.
In the case of India and Pakistan, the world has seen the weight of U.S. influence - an integrated combination of diplomatic, economic and military clout brought to bear to reduce the threat of war. It is not clear exactly what pressure Washington exerted on India, but there was a remarkably swift turnaround not only in the tone of India's public statements but in actions such as allowing Pakistan air traffic to resume and calling its navy away from Pakistani waters. Whether the two countries would have had a (non-nuclear) war without U.S. pressure is a matter of conjecture. It is true, too, that had the United States not been engaged in its operations against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it would not have summoned up the effort to keep India and Pakistan apart.
.
Equally, it is unlikely that India-Pakistan conflict would have gone beyond the level of the serious but contained Kargil confrontation of last year, but for the opportunity that the U.S. "war on terror" seemed to give India, and particularly its shaky Hindu nationalist government, to punish Pakistan for support of armed opponents (not all of them Islamic militants) of Indian rule in Kashmir.
.
The bottom line is that the United States marshaled its own influence, and received Russian and Chinese support, in heading off for now a threat of a significant regional war.
.
Similar compliments cannot be heaped on U.S. activities in the southern Philippines. The US troop presence had been justified by overemphasizing the links between Al Qaeda and the Abu Sayyaf bandits and the need to help the Philippine military rescue American Christian missionary hostages.
.
Whatever now happens to Abu Sayyaf, hostage-taking in this lawless region is unlikely to end. Indeed, the more attention given to foreign victims of it, the more likely foreigners are to be targets.
.
Meanwhile the U.S./Filipino obsession with Abu Sayyaf has been an opportunity for a much bigger insurgent group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, to use a truce to consolidate its position on the ground. If the United States wants to end terrorism in the area it will have to be involved in taking on the front, and engaging in a 30-year-old war.
.
As it is, the U.S. presence is regarded with suspicion by neighbors, resentment by many Filipinos and hostility by Muslims who see it as backing for further encroachment by Christian settlers on once predominantly Muslim Mindanao. Likewise, it is easy to envisage the United States and its allies being drawn ever deeper into local disputes in Afghanistan and perhaps later in the Central Asian republics, on the grounds of continuing to fight Al Qaeda, which is better equipped to survive in Western urban jungles than in Asian forests and deserts.
.
The lack of a single post-Soviet threat makes it tempting for America, with its extraordinary military capability, to want to impose its will on all situations. Such dilution of energies and alliances is now the greatest threat to its global strategic influence.
.
Has it stopped to ask the cost to its global influence of the cruder aspects of its post-Sept. 11 policies, whether the venture in the Philippines, treaty abrogations, farm subsidies or blanket support for Israel?
.
The tendency to reach for military solutions, and find someone else to blame for American problems, is also seen in the war on drugs. Providing firepower and biochemical weapons to national governments and UN agencies to attack the source may go down well at home, but campaigns against poor farmers in Colombia or Afghanistan smack of stupidity as well as arrogance, when the drug problem is one of demand (and distribution channels) in the West.
.
The world can be happy with U.S. hegemony, but only if it is administered with a light touch and concentrates on preventing major regional issues from disturbing global peace. Practicing what one preaches on economic globalization would help, too.
< < Back to Start of Article
  Print Article Text Larger Text Small Single Column Mutli Column