the global site

subscribe 

the new era of war 2001-03

just peace

• 911 & US response

• Afghanistan

• Israel-Palestine

• the intellectuals

worldwide_war

• collected writings on the new era of war

• Bush's global state: a regressive crystallisation 

• 'risk-transfer militarism': the new Western way of war

Martin Shaw's column

US and its enemy  

North Korea: prisoner nation

India-Pakistan: the new empires square off    29 May 2002

after Kenya, Paul Rogers on al-Qaida's long-term programme

'unrestricted warfare' a new doctrine of warfare from China's military young Turks: 'the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, nothing is forbidden.'

Russia and China the anti-terrorist coalition Robert M Cutler: 'Does the universal international endorsement of Washington's war on terrorism render irrelevant the Sino-Russian entente that has evolved over the past decade?'

Sudan Eradication of Terrorism Forestalled by Khartoum's Genocidal Policies and Oppressive Rule Survivors' Rights International criticises the US's embrace of Sudan's regime in its 'war on terror'

Norbert Vollertsen on the prisoner nation; Robert Windrem on death and terror in North Korea's Gulag Archipelago. Plus three Guardian reports: the dangerous game being played out; how Clinton came close to bombing; millions starve as aid is withheld.

 

sabotaging the ICC Israeli Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has initiated an  international conference of lawyers from the US, Russia, China, Israel, etc., aimed at restricting the power vested in the international war crimes tribunal in The Hague. Netanyahu said if the court's power is not examined, IDF soldiers and commanders could be personally indicted in The Hague. Moscow carnage my hours inside Moscow theatre Russian journalist Anna Polikovskaya tells what happened when Chechen extremists asked her to negotiate towards the end of the hostage crisis. South Asia's nuclear threat false hope in deterrence: Achin Vanaik: 'If current war clouds have receded and with it the danger of a nuclear exchange, what about the next confrontation or the time after that? How many warning bells do we need to hear to recognise what has been obvious since those tests of May 1998? That this is the part of the world where a nuclear holocaust is most likely.' evidence of Israeli contempt for Geneva convention Suzanne Goldenberg what price Oslo? Edward Said: 'Due weight must be given to the enormous human costs of Israel's destructive policies: this is the only possible framework for negotiations.' Martin van Creveld, a military historian at Jerusalem's Hebrew University, believes that Israel stands on the brink of a full-scale war, which would begin with the banishment of Mr Arafat, and end with the mass expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. "I think Mr Sharon is waiting for the day when he can throw out all the Palestinians. It is not so very difficult. I think these attacks are playing straight into his hands," he said. "I think he wants to escalate the situation because he feels there is no way Israel can make peace with the Palestinians, and he is just waiting for the opportunity to throw them all out. ... Israel is becoming desperate, and people who even a few months ago would never dream of such a solution are beginning to think it is the only possibility.

The depth of the historic turning-point of 2001-2 is fearfully underlined by the latest news from the sub-continent. The latest link in the chain of events that began with 9/11, continued with the Afghanistan war and saw an ever-more barbarous Palestine-Israel war threatens to dwarf them all. All-out war threatens between two of the most populous states on earth, the latest and most enthusiastic nuclear-armed states. Just as the US and Russia announce a new stage in the reduction of their still-awesome nuclear arsenals, India and Pakistan stand on the brink of a war that could lead to the most terrible violence anywhere, worldwide, since the first primitive atomic bombs were dropped in 1945.

Bush is frightening enough: but the combination of Vajpayee and Musharref could prove far more deadly. Academic political and international understanding are almost surreally impotent in the face of this threat. Still mesmerised by America, critical social science offers us little grip on the nuclear militarism of the Asian great powers. While the intelligentsia is preoccupied with the 'new imperialism' - or with Negri and Hardt's fashionable ideas of an amorphous decentred 'empire' - old-style imperialism comes up from behind, replete with threats of devastating war, courtesy of south Asia's rulers.

The Indian elite rules a huge, disparate quasi-empire of over one thousand million people - many more than all the European empires combined at the peak of their power in the last century. The Pakistani generals command a smaller but also impressive model, with over two hundred million souls. In both states, the English-speaking political and military classes seem determined to ape the worst characteristics of the British Raj that they shrugged off almost 55 years ago. Like the European elites of an earlier age, Asia's most powerful rulers preside over powerful imperial centres, their mutually self-destructive rivalry faithfully mirrored in terrible arrogance towards subordinate peoples and the poor alike, as well as their state rivals.

India has stood as a model of 'democracy' for half a century, and it has avoided the extremes of mass death (such as those in anti-democratic China in the same period). But India's democratic virtues go no further than those of the 'democratic' Britain of Asquith and Lloyd George, compared to the Kaiser's Germany in 1914. India's imperial arrogance - its refusal to address the self-determination of Kashmir - stands after all at the heart of the present crisis. The hands of India's Hindu nationalist government are dripping with the blood of Muslims slaughtered by its militants in Gujarat earlier this year, as Arundhati Roy - trenchant critic of the elite's callously disregard of the poor in the Narmada Valley 'development' - desribes. Pakistan is certainly no better - its tenuous, corrupt elite democracy has been periodically snuffed out by military dictators for whom Kashmir and anti-Indian mobilisation are welcome distractions from poverty and oppression at home. Its rulers have indeed been sponsors of both the Taleban and the Islamist terrorists who attack India.

No one should be fooled that the rapid development of both countries under globalising conditions will be an overriding inhibition against military folly. Time and time again rulers have boxed themselves into conflicts from which they can see no way out but to actually use their military hardware. War has already begun in the escalation of border firing which is reducing villages to rubble: its extension seems highly likely, and only time will tell how far the mutually irresponsible elites will take it. The voices of Western leaders are too little, too late, and the UN has been outrageously inactive. What this crisis shows, so far, is the limits to Western-global power. No doubt, as the scale of the possible catastrophe and its huge effects around the world sinks in - these could far exceed September 11 - Western leaders will try again to massage the egos of the rival despots and negotiate a halt to the fighting before nuclear weapons are used. But it is by no means certain that they will exceed. Just as during the Cold War, we should begin to contemplate the thinness of the line that separates us from massive destruction.

m.shaw@sussex.ac.uk

comment on the war and on the views you read on this site - email us your response