The fifth anniversary of the horrendous 9/11 attacks on ‘impregnable’ America has brought the grim reminder that we are in the midst of a new war the end of which may not be witnessed by this or the next generation. Some people already call it World War III. Unlike the previous two ones, this one is being fought not against a visible and conventional army but against fanaticism which had morphed into religious terrorism, and as an ideology and concept, it seems to be only adding to its followers for a variety of reasons that range from perceived bias of the West against Muslims to their ‘humiliation’.
The ‘war on terror’, admits President George W. Bush now, is going to last decades. This is very different from the confident predictions he used to make earlier of finishing the ‘enemy’ quickly and decisively. He raised a war cry against ‘terror’, assuring Americans and the world that the scourge would be wiped out soon as the forces of freedom and liberty must prevail. After all, this spirit of freedom etc had conquered fascism, Nazism and communism so it should be considered strong enough to take on terrorism.
Yes, it may. The question is when? Today most of the world lives in the fear of the unknown: the ‘next (terrorist) attack’. A strange fact, however, is that none of the major terrorist attacks after 9/11 took place on American soil. The Americans even take a swipe at the Europeans, alleging that their failure to integrate Muslims minorities has seen ‘home grown’ terrorists mushrooming on the continent. The Americans claim that their Muslim minorities are well integrated and do not feel neglected or discriminated against the way their brethrens in Europe do.
To what extent this American claim is true cannot be said. If the US society is as well integrated as the US claims it is there could not have been a five-fold rise in hate crime since 9/11. On an average one ‘hate crime’ is reported in the US almost every second day. And ‘hate crime’ in the US actually means causing bodily harm, including murder, to the brown-skinned or turbaned Asians or Arabs. A number of Sikhs have been killed in the US post-9/11 on the assumption that they were ‘Arabs’ and followers of Osama bin Laden. The American government may have expressed regrets over the killings of Sikhs and other browns, but it offers no apology.
In fact, the US has turned many of its own laws and values upside down as it wages a so far unsuccessful ‘war’ against terror. Of course, other countries are immediately pulled up when they deviate from laws that protect human rights even if they may be under more serious and constant threat from terrorists. On October 26, 2001, just days after 9/11, President Bush signed the (infamous) Patriot Act, claiming that it will enhance security. But critics said it clearly impinged on individuals’ freedom. After invading Afghanistan in early October 2001, there was a mass arrest of Taliban cadres in Kabul and elsewhere. Most of them were flown to Guantanamo Bay in Cuba where they were held without trial; some still remain there even as stories of torture of the inmates in American prisons keep tumbling out.
On his inauguration as the 43rd President of the US in January 2001, Bush, elected after a controversial election that might have been more commonly witnessed in a third world country, said: ‘We will build on defences beyond challenge, lest weaknesses invite challenge’. He did that by increasing his annual defence budget by whopping $50 billion. The result is there for all to see: his ‘challenges’ have increased many times but that does not stop America from criticising the defence outlay of some other countries that have been terrorists’ targets for nearly two decades.
Leading European countries did come under terrorist attacks after 9/11, though by a rough calculation India faced many more terrorist attacks since then. However, Europe does look vulnerable to terrorist attacks. But the continent also managed to escape just in time from many potential terrorist attacks, as was evident when the plan to bomb trans-Atlantic flights was foiled in the UK. The success in frustrating such diabolic plots comes entirely from sharing intelligence and coordination among nations engaged in fighting ‘terror’. A laxity in global cooperative effort slackens the war on ‘terror’.
Yet some countries do withhold this kind of cooperation with other countries. The spearhead of the campaign against ‘terror’, the United States, openly adopts ‘double standards’ to fight the ‘war’ on terror. Countries like India and Afghanistan continue to suffer from almost regular terrorist attacks that take a large toll of innocent human lives because there is no curb on activities of terrorists who hatch plots against India with the blessings of the state.
Till 9/11, the Western world, led by the United States, would almost never accept that India was a victim of terrorism as the West had a different take on ‘terrorists’. Attacks on US embassy in Africa in 1998 and a US naval ship in 2000 were seen as acts of ‘terrorism’. But the Al Qaeda chief, Osama bin Laden—a US ally during the Afghan war against Soviet occupation-- was not seen as a monster seeking to destroy ‘Western civilisation’ till after 9/11. The discovery of Osama as a villain also brought the unpleasant fact (for the US) that its long-standing ally, Pakistan, was the pivot around which much of terrorist activities in the world revolved. Still the US condones Pakistan’s continuous flirtation with terrorism because of a tacit understanding between Washington and Islamabad that the latter would turn the terrorists’ tap only in the easterly direction---towards India.
It might not be too wide of the mark to say that at the start of the so-called war on terror, Osama bin Laden was the prime target, for capture or killing. For long the US abated in creating the myth that Osama’s whereabouts were unknown, though it has been clear almost from day one that he had fled to Pakistan from Afghanistan where it was no longer safe for him because of the presence of American forces. Then, Osama was said to be hiding somewhere ‘on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan’.
That charade is probably being dropped with an assertion—though so far only in unofficial circles—that Osama is actually ensconced in a Pakistani cave. But no helicopter gunship or cluster bomb will fall on his haven; they have been reserved for the likes of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti. Does Osama bin Laden remain a primary concern of those who are sworn to finish terrorism? Perhaps not, but the fight against terrorism must go on --without a focus. Clearly, there is nothing to signal an end of this war in the foreseeable future.
Courtesy : Syndicate Features
Printer-Friendly Version
