Kissinger's New World Order And India.
Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of the State of the United States of America, is well known to Indians as the man who sent the Seventh Fleet to Bay of Bengal during the emergence of Bangladesh. He and President Nixon used the good offices of Pakistan to make an overture to China. Neither India's democratic system, nor Pakistan's dictatorship, nor human rights violation in the East Bengal bothered the United States of America which claims to stand for freedom and democracy. Now he seems to have re-evaluated the role of India in the new emerging world order.
In his book, 'Does America Need A Foreign Policy?'(Simon & Schuster, New York, June,2001), he has emphasized the need for closer cooperation between India and the United States. "India", he writes, "is a democracy, by far the best functioning and genuine free system of any of the nations achieving independence following the Second World War". He admits that military alliance with Pakistan "blighted America-India relations during the cold war". He also understands Indian position saying, "India's conduct during the cold war was not so different from that of the United States in its formative decades". He does not subscribe to the nuclear theology of former President Clinton that only five powers are entitled to it by virtue of their pre-eminence and status as the members of the Security Council. He is for preventing the spread of nuclear and missiles technology rather than tilting against windmills – rolling back of nuclear capability of India. The United States has other common interests with India which must not be jeopardized by over-emphasizing the nuclear issue and avers that " a closer cooperative relationship between the two countries is in their mutual and basic interests". Kissinger believes that Indian security interests as formatted by the British depends on naval supremacy in the Indian Ocean from Singapore to Aden with friendly nations all around the area and also in the North. According to him, American and Indian interests are parallel and this could be strengthened by mutual cooperation.
The collapse of Soviet Union
The break up of the Soviet Union, as a result of its own contradictions, both in theory and practice, has thrown up many challenges to the world. One of the major contradictions was: building a society of free and equals through the dictatorship of the proletariet (this enfeebled its people). The other was: permanent revolution or support to communist parties in other countries (this antagonized all non-communist countries). And the third one was : development of armaments industry with a total neglect of consumer goods industry which can only satisfy human needs(this created dis-satisfaction among its people).These and other contradictions undermined its capacity to build a prosperous nation and provided enough reasons for the democracies of Europe and the U.S.A unite their people. against the Soviet Union.
However,NATO ( North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and the Warsaw Pact equipped with atomic weapons provided a stability to the world through a balance of terror. The non-aligned countries – the newly liberated countries of Asia and Africa—were wooed by both the power blocs. They mostly remained spectators in the clash of ideologies.Now,with the passing away or withering away of the Soviet Union, the world is in search of a new world order.
The present situation
The world, in the first decade of the 21st century, is a world living in different centuries. While the United States, Japan and the countries of the European Union have been able to provide a very high standard of living to their peoples through a free economy in a democratic set up, there are countries (especially in Africa) which are still struggling to establish states with a "legitimacy" in the eyes of their own people.
There are countries, which were liberated after the Second World War, especially in Asia, which have transformed the lives of their people. China, with a G.D.P growth of about 8 to 10 % per annum for about two decades, and India, which joined this league a decade later, with a G.D.P. growth of about 6 to 7 % per annum, are poised to transform the standard of living of their people as well.
The countries of Latin America have a better standard of living, but the inequality in society has created problems of governance. The Gulf countries, thanks to crude oil, have all the wealth in the world. They have a free economy but no democratic system. In this world situation, the pre-eminence of the United States has been well summed up by Henry Kissinger as follows, "At the dawn of the new millennium, the United States is enjoying a preeminence unrivaled by even the greatest empires of the past. From weaponry to enterpreneurship, from science to technology, from higher education to popular culture, America exercises an unparalleled ascendancy around the globe. During the last decade of the twentieth century, America's preponderant position rendered it the indispensable component of international stability."
The New World Order
The architecture for a new world order as envisaged by Kissinger is mainly based on the Atlantic Alliance of USA and the European Union. While enumerating different perceptions of international affairs and certain conflict of interests on economic issues between the United States and the European Union, Kissinger asserts that : " It is not an exaggeration to say that the future of democratic government as we understand it depends on whether the democracies bordering the North Atlantic manage to revitalize their relations in the world without Cold War and whether they can live up to the challenges of a global world order. If the Atlantic relationship gradually degenerates into the sort of rivalry that, amidst all its great achievements, spelled the end of Europe's preeminence in world affairs, the resulting crisis would undermine those values the Western societies have cherished in common".
As far as South America is concerned, he rightly advocates a stable and legitimate democratic political structure with transparent institutions and an independent judicial system. He has identified threats to this structure from narcotics, terrorism and guerrilla movements. Salvation, according to him, lies in an Atlantic Free Trade Area covering both the Americas and the Europe.
Kissinger's prescription for Asia is based on a balance of power: no domination by any single power; superior American military establishment to thwart hegemonistic threats; alliance with Japan; constructive dialogues with India; China to be the indispensable component of a constructive Asian policy; preventing or atleast limiting nuclear weapons; human rights to be a part of a dialogue reflecting American deepest values". "It (America) must be present without appearing to dominate",he suggests.
The Arab-Israel conflict in the Gulf region has made it a tinder-box. Though the resolution of the conflict may still be far away, the creation of a Palestinian state and the security of Israel have to be parts of the final solution. Since crude oil is essential for all advanced industrial nations, it is imperative to support moderate countries in the Gulf region and try to improve relations with Iran and Iraq, which may not be possible in the near future. He envisages an important role for India in this region. "The Gulf should play a major role in an increasingly intensive strategic dialogue with India".
Africa is a challenge, points out Kissinger, to all nations of the world and all international organizations to reach health and education to all its teeming millions. Apart from South Africa and Nigeria, all other nations in Africa require tremendous mobilization of resources to uplift its people.
Concert of Nations
The architecture of a new world order that is delineated by Kissinger has the United States as its kingpin and its bedrock is the Atlantic Alliance. Though it is based on freedom and democracy, it is a concert of Atlantic nations than a concert of nations. He has not brought United Nations in the discussion at all. The United Nations was created as a forum for all nations to come together and solve international issues on a cooperative manner. It has not fulfilled its promise is well-accepted and that is mainly because of the cold war that erupted soon after its inception. Now that the cold war is over, it would be in the fitness of things that it was further strengthened by giving a legitimate voice to all the nations of the world. That means that the concerns of security and development of all nations to be given equal importance in deciding the course of action by the United Nations and its various affiliated organisations.The most important way of strengthening UNO was to submit to its decisions by the members of the Security Council. No nation, however big, should never take any unilateral action against other nations in all international affairs –political, military or economic.
The Security Council should be restructured to reflect the new emerging world. It should have as permanent members all the major nations of all the continents such as India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and Nigeria. The disputes between countries should be taken up by the Security Council and try to evolve a consensus and a compromise rather than impose a solution. The problems should be tackled at an early stage before they degenerate into conflicts and wars. This should be possible if every country's interests are taken care of. It should be a concert of nations rather than that of Western nations
Terrorism
This piece was written just before the recent terrorist attack on the twin towers of the World Trade Centre and and the Pentagon. This attack has brought home to Americans and others the shape of the new menace to all the nations of the world. India, among others, have been victims of this terror for quite some time. The time has now come for all civilized nations to formulate a policy to protect nations which suffer from this scourge. As President Bush announced on the day of the attack, it is necessary to bring to account not merely the terrorists but those who harbour them.
Borders of nations cannot be re-drawn by blood. Today every country is multi-ethnic and multi-national. Self-determination for every minority is neither possible, nor necessary. In a democratic system all minorities have all the rights that the majorities enjoy. Their grievances not merely expressed but redressed as well. There could be an international convention to protect the interests of minorities. I believe that a new world order should be based on freedom and democracy, and a comity of democratic nations.
(Published by Freedom First, a liberal monthly , in 2002)
*************** .
