Shashikant
Nishant Sharma
Abstract:
India is a partner of the United States of American and many
other organizations which are fighting the war against terrorism is well
evident. The geopolitical location of India helps in being in leader of the
such operations. India has been able to curb terrorism in many parts of the
country like Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland, Tamilnadu and other part of
the country which may not be termed as terrorism. The track record of countries
India is good and it has never promoted terrorism in other parts of the world
and whenever needed it has been actively supporting the campaign of the United
Nations and United States of America for curbing terrorism.
The origin of the terrorism is well known to be in the Middle
East but the spread of the terrorism in the other parts of the world is a
matter of great concern. One of the world region which got highly affected by
this speed is Asia Pacific region and this research is more relevant for Asia
Pacific Region.
India is more decidedly aligning itself with the US strategic
vision of pivoting to the Asia Pacific and Indian Ocean Region to curb the rise
of terrorism and ensure regional balance of powers. As Pakistan is well known
supporter of terrorism and US fears that Pakistan may lend the nuclear weapon
technology to terrorists or terrorists may grab it forcefully from a
politically weak country like Pakistan which has nuclear powers. With US
lawmakers pressing for NATO ally status for India make it more clear that India
is a strategic partner in curbing the rise of terrorism in Asia Pacific region.
Keywords:
Terrorism, Asia Pacific Region, Indo-Pacific, counter
terrorism, Religious fanaticism
Introduction
The Asia Pacific region continues to struggle with multiple
problems like terrorism, religious fanaticism, poverty, corruption, political
instability, authoritarian governance, and many others. These challenges are not special to Asia
Pacific Region but the region seems to be particularly vulnerable to them as
these nations are undergoing a significant political, social and economic
transformation in last one decade. These
problems give rise and support of terrorism, the wisest move and strategic
partnership of India with world powers like the US and Russia can prove to be a
ray of hope in the global fight against the vice of the terrorism. How India
tackles such issues will extend important lessons to the larger region as well
as to the world as a whole.
It is also well evident that the war on terror in the region can be tackled
only through the well implemented stabilization and reconstruction efforts in
these countries as the root cause of the rise and spread of the terrorism is
well linked to the unstable political conditions in the countries like
Pakistan, Vietnam, Sri Lanka and others. The focus should be also on the improvements
in governance and human rights.
No country, even the United States, can win the war or alter the
situation in Asia Pacific alone and it needs the support of countries like
India, China, Russia and others. The
effort requires cooperation between all the major powers and stakeholders in
the region, keeping in view the track record of India, it is well accepted that
the war against terrorism can be waived under the leadership of India in South
Asia region. The magnitude of the
problem of terrorism is large and alignment of the like-minded and good
political powers is the need of the hour to curb the rise and spread of the
terrorism in Asia Pacific region.
The number of regional organizations and security forums in Asia
Pacific region has been growing, there is little coordination between them,
which triggers counterproductive rivalry and plays into the hands of extremist
elements. Since terror knows no borders, what happens in Asia Pacific
region also impacts developments in South Asia and the rest of the world.
Discussion
The counterterrorist effort in Asia Pacific region has successfully
marginalized the Taliban and al Qaeda, but there is likely to be a Long War
because of the localization of the
terrorist threat as new autonomous extremist organizations continue to emerge
in Central Asia. Some of these groups find
themselves through narcotic trafficking
while others are engaged in legitimate business. The sources of proliferation
of radical Islam, which is supporting the terrorism can be found in social and economic deprivation,
wide-spread corruption and political authoritarianism. The only efficient way
of successfully eliminating the extremist threat in Asia Pacific region is through a combination
of dramatic political, economic and social changes.
There are also important differences among
the Central Asian republics that merit distinguished approaches. For
instance, there are different economic potentials, diverse governance issues,
and distinctive foreign relations. Kazakhstan is an example of a country
that has adopted a market reform and gradual democratization. It is also
interested in developing regional integration and multilateral security
cooperation. While Kazakhstan is interested in forging ties with Asia, it does
not want to lose its European tradition and Western connection.
The
State Department’s initiative on Central and South Asia economic integration
was received positively by the Asian Pacific representatives who see it a sound
chance to stabilize and normalize Afghanistan and restore and construct new
infrastructure links between Central and South Asia. At the
same time, certain concern was shown almost a negative fallout from greater
interregional people-to-people contacts through expansion of extremist
activities. It was also proposed that a more substantial partnership between
Afghanistan and Pakistan while desirable could also lead to resumption of fears
regarding Islamabad’s ambitions in Afghanistan and thus had to be balanced by
region’s constructive engagement with Iran and strong links with India.
Thither was a consensus among participants that
the rising presence of large powers in Asia Pacific should not lead to a new
version game of political supremacy. This
task remains complicated, yet, not simply because the great powers continue to
regale each other with suspicion, but also because the more assertive Asian
states are at times willing to cook and play off the great forces against each
other. Excessive geopolitics were
defined as damaging to long-term developments in Asia. Thither was a recognition of the
fact that no individual country can dominate Asia. Thus the great powers
need to oblige each other in the neighborhood rather than focus on zero sum
tactics. The complementarity of great power’s role should be emphasized and
better promoted. Russia has historical links to the area, connects it with
Europe and European tradition as well as functioning as a conduit for much of
the region’s energy. China’s economic influence can contribute to development
and modernization as well as closer relations with the Asia-Pacific. India
provides an impressive Asian example of combining democratic tradition,
spiritual freedom and economic vigor.
The U.S. presence is considered vital to the
Asia Pacific area. It helps strengthen sovereignty of Asian republics
that remain wary of powerful neighbors. The relations with the United
States also help the republics become more visible in the international sphere.
The U.S. democratization effort is welcome, simply must proceed incrementally
and be tuned to domestic realities within each state. At the same
time, the U.S. support for human rights needs to be more logical to avoid
setbacks like in Uzbekistan. In this context some participants questioned the
need for inviting Uzbekistan to take share in the US-led Regional Cooperation
exercise program to be hosted in Bishkek this year. The future of NATO’s
Partnership for Peace was characterized as unclear as some Central Asian
regimes view it with suspicion and treat it as an ideological vehicle of
Western influence. At the same time, the Central Asian states see the
value in NATO’s presence in the area as they act as a fragile balancing act
among neighbors. No ace, nevertheless, seriously entertains the opinion of Central
Asian states becoming full members of NATO.
Asian states recognize in principle the need
for multinational cooperation, but remain somewhat uncomfortable around a full
speedy movement in that commission. This is an objective reality of continued
nation-construction in the republics and reluctance to cede sovereignty and is
likewise a product of remaining suspicion between them. The Kazakh-Uzbek
rivalry for leadership in regional affairs is having extra problems. The big
forces have their own pursuits and each prefer to advertise their own regional
organization: Russia-the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO),
China-the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the West-the NATO
Partnership for Peace (PFP) and OSCE, believing it to be more appropriate or
significant. It was intimated, nevertheless, that all these regional
systems have their own niche. The United States should accept that neither SCO
nor CSTO is likely to melt soon and can
be incorporated in the US security strategy in Central Asia. At the same
time, for these organizations to be more efficient, they should be transparent
and non-exclusive. For example, the US needs to be eventually granted an
observer status in the SCO.
The
doctrine of militant Jihad was used by the United States, Pakistan and Saudi
Arabia in Afghanistan during the 1980s to take about the forcing out of the
Soviet Union. Still, “when the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan in the late
1990s, militant Jihad was not alone the principal driving force underlying
their accession to power, but it was likewise employed by al-Qaida and other
Jihadist movements of Central Asia between 1998 and 2001 to carry out regional
Jihad in Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and even in Chechnya and the Xinjiang province
of the People’s Republic of China” (Yahuda, 2011). Whatever we may address the
act of terrorism, it will suffer its devastating impact all around the universe.
Despite
the fact that the global Jihadists and insurgents were highly efficacious in
their efforts to destabilize Iraq, and despite the fact that the Jihadist
forces were gathering momentum in Afghanistan once again, this presentation
argues against the withdrawal of the U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The U.S. Trade and Development Agency has
launched a $1 million Central Asian infrastructure Initiative focused
on energy, transportation and communications. The U.S. Agency for
International Development’s Customs Reform Initiative aims to foster regional
trade by harmonizing, toning up and streamlining custom functions.
North-south
energy trade could bring substantial benefits. Central Asia has large
power resources and exportable capacity. The combination of thermal power
in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, along with hydro-power in Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan, could hit Central Asia a dependable and diversified electricity
exporting partner. Complementary seasonal demands between South and
Central Asia indicate significant potential for north-south energy trade.
Afghanistan would benefit from being a transit state.
The
United States is interested in going with the international donor community and
with countries in the region to promote these initiatives. India could
play an important role, including through strategic investment
The
perception of a double standard maintained by virtually all Asian analysts
damages the proper understanding that democracy strengthens stability and
protection, and promotes the idea that democracy undermines security. “The
double standard also leads to a maturation of the anti-American attitudes in
the nations of Central Asia. Although in India we have a more receptive forum
for information, where it is possible to hear diverse points of view on
American policy in the area” (Medeiros, 2005). Distinctions in political and economic development
make possible regional strategy only in the area of protection, but not in
democracy and human rights spheres which develop at a bilateral level.
Russia’s
policy vi's-à-via Asia Pacific region has been produced from a pronounced lack of interest to a more
proactive rather than reactive course. The transparency of borders, constant
migration flows, and economic ties, military and political developments made
Russia much more hooked on the phylogeny of the state of affairs in the states
of Central Asia than had ever been anticipated. The US military-political
presence in the region was an additional factor provoking a rise of Russia’s
activity there.
A young
level of Russia’s policy was forged by a phenomenon of ‘color revolutions’. It
was perceived by political leaders and experts as a new project made out by
Western political technologists with a role of bringing to power pro-Western
governments, less inclined to cooperate with Russia. Several general
conclusions stemmed from this reasoning. “(1) Western policy is-à-via Russia
and post-Soviet states has been more vividly marked by a double standard
approach. (2) The CIS has lost its importance and bilateral ties are now
requiring major attention. (3) Russia should follow the West and also start
creating NGOs in the post-Soviet countries and as well as work more closely
with a young generation of political leaders in these lands” (Blair &
Hanley, 2001).
The
countries of Central Asia have yet to produce a political model that would
assure a normal transfer of power by way of democratic processes. At
present the departure of any leader could unleash a power struggle based on
clan or regional interests. In some nations it might pave the path for the
Islamists. Russia’s policy in this context is directed by pragmatism and not by
any ideological preferences. It dispenses with the present leadership and does
not encourage changes, which might destabilize Central Asia, presenting an
imminent threat to Russia itself.
The independent
Asia Pacific security relations have been ticked off by the immersion of
a careful balancing game driven by the area countries themselves. “After
1991 area leaders expected a stronger U.S. presence and introduced elements of
parliamentary democracy and market economics partly to draw it. But they
soon took in Russia was going to stay on their indispensable partner, and in
fact, neither Russia, the U.S. nor China had enough interest, vigor, or
conceptual framework to commit major resources to competition in Central Asia”
(Ball, 1993). Meanwhile the transition to the market was proving
difficult, and more open politics brought political risk. Then by
mid-decade, Central Asian states were moving toward presidential rule in
politics and back from bold economic reform. Their international ties
multiplied not only in the U.S. but also with Russia, in the Collective
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and with both Russia and China in what
became the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2001. “Caspian
Pipeline Diplomacy dominated the first years, but then faded as Russia and the
U.S. found multiple pipelines to mutual advantage and oil costs went up. In
2000 the event was an interwoven series of domestic and international
stalemates whose net result was to establish the Asian nations themselves –
rather than outside powers – the principal determinants of their international
relations” (Vaughn, 2007).
This
balancing practice, then survived 9/11. “9/11 produced a surge in the
U.S. area presence, but that in turn evoked compensating increases in Russia’s
and China’s presences (which they could not have accomplished on their own).
Also, the U.S. modulated, but did not drop its support for human rights and
democratization in the area. This threw everyone else common cause to
protest, and once the wave of post-Soviet “color revolutions” reached Central
Asia in 2005, it crystallized into the SCO’s “suggestion” of a U.S. base
withdrawal timetable and subsequent U.S. departure from Uzbekistan” (Gunaratna,
2003).
Terrorism is an event that’s usually considered
quite seriously in India, which cooks it all the more surprising that its
ruling establishment has taken to politicizing it in order to pressure China.
India fell victim to a terrorist onslaught
against its Pathankot air force base in the beginning of January, and it’s been
demanding justice for what happened ever since then. New Delhi accused Masood
Azhar of being the mastermind behind the mathematical process and called on
Islamabad to deliver him to India. Pakistan of course refused, but instead of
India treating this like the bilateral problem that it actually is and such
similar situations always have been up until this point, New Delhi
internationalized the conflict by involving the UN. It called upon the global
body to designate Azhar a terrorist, which would then force Pakistan to reach
him over or face multilateral sanctions.
“Strategic and political developments in giving historical
contexts have come to define geographical regions as geopolitical arenas in
international politics. Areas, such as ‘Middle East’, ‘Southeast Asia’, and
‘Western Europe’, for example, have been more than just cartographic areas.
Often, oceans that provide connectivity to different land masses have even
defined new geopolitical constructs” (Pempel, 2005).
Of late, a new geopolitical construct has emerged that is now
being heavily debated amongst international relations scholars and strategic
analysts: the ‘Indo-Pacific’. The current use of the term does hold specific
connotations. The term ‘Indo-Pacific’ has been broadly practiced in the past,
but within differing contexts. This term was often employed in Australian
foreign policy debates during the 1950s, 60s and 70s.
ASEAN has provided an exemplar for the construction of
regional institutions based on cooperation and consensus. Today, it has also
become the core for the confidence building economic and security structures
and creations that are emerging in the region, such as the East Asian Summit
(EAS), the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting plus
(ADMM++), and in the negotiations for the founding of a region wide free
economic space-RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership). “While in
that respect are other bilateral and multilateral arrangements in place, or
being negotiated (such as the TPP), the ones created by the ASEAN continue to
be the most significant. India’s ties
with each of our ASEAN neighbors are multifaceted marked by expanding trade and
economic cooperation. The ASEAN–India partnership promotes the basic objectives
of the countries of the region: peace and stability, advancement and
prosperity” (Vajpayee, 2002). India’s deepening bilateral political, economic,
security and functional cooperation with ASEAN countries individually and collectively
respond well to regional challenges. As maritime nations, India and ASEAN
members are intensifying their cooperation for the advancement of maritime protection
and safety, freedom of navigation as well as the peaceful resolution of
maritime disputes in conformity with international legal philosophy.
Conclusions
The development of Indian political dialogue, the
intensification of our audiences in regional forums, and the enlargement of our
security and counterterrorism cooperation has had a positive effect on regional
peace and constancy. India has also developed strategic partnerships with the
other major nations of the region–Japan, Korea, China, and Australia.
There obtain adverse trends of religious extremism and
terrorism, widespread poverty, and diverse developmental trajectories, besides
transnational challenges such as piracy, arms as well as drugs and human
trafficking. This area is also master of ceremonies to a majority of enduring
strategic rivalries that are rooted in emotion and historical territorial
disputes. This has contributed to a revival of terms such as the ‘Great or
Extended Asia–Pacific’, and more lately, the development of the new geopolitical
paradigm of ‘Indo-Pacific’ that seeks a strategic link between two of the
largest oceanic tracts.
The geography of hyphenated geospatial constructs has never
been easy, especially those with maritime connotations, inviting different
definitions with the attendant dilemmas of what to include and what to leave
out. One way of arriving at a consensus is to set the narrative along the
geography-geopolitics, Geo-strategy ambit, linking these to the ‘contemporary
context’; and, as long as strategic complementarities exist, the exact shape
and size of the construct becomes of secondary importance.
Hence, far, Asia– Pacific was the standard geopolitical term
to imply the region; but today the word ‘Indo-Pacific’ is being initiated into
the lexicon of the strategy documents of all the major powers due to the
proactive role of India in the area of stability and forward motion.
References
[1].
Pempel, T.
J. (2005). Remapping East
Asia: the construction of a region. Cornell University Press.
[2].
Gunaratna,
R. (Ed.). (2003). Terrorism in
the Asia-Pacific: threat and response. Marshall Cavendish International.
[3].
Blair, D.
C., & Hanley Jr, J. T. (2001). From wheels to webs: Reconstructing Asia‐pacific security arrangements. Washington Quarterly, 24(1), 5-17.
[4].
Ball, D. (1993).
Arms and affluence: military acquisitions in the Asia-Pacific region. International Security, 18(3), 78-112.
[5].
Vaughn, B.
(2007, January). US Strategic and Defense Relationships in the Asia-Pacific
Region. Library of Congress Washington DC Congressional Research Service.
[6].
Medeiros,
E. S. (2005). Strategic hedging and the future of Asia‐pacific stability.The Washington Quarterly, 29(1), 145-167.
[7].
Yahuda, M.
(2011). The International
Politics of the Asia Pacific. Routledge.
