I wrote this several years ago, so it's a bit dated, but it applies NOW more than ever as we've witnessed another unspeakable horror in Mumbai. The problem is not going away easily. Radical changes are needed. For years I have sought people's opinions on this issue, which is now very real to the West finally because Westerners were targeted in Mumbai. Here is what I have come up with, however flawed, raw, and emotional, I hope you will read it if you did not before. I hope that a new Obama administration and a Singh administration would consider at least some of these policies. This terrorism needs to be ENDED. We can do it.
This isn't what I want to send out on Thanksgiving- but then again I can be grateful this did not personally affect me, and others cannot.
THE NEW WORLD ORDER
New World Order: A new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. (Wikipedia.com)
Since the 20th century, America and others have battled a series of -ism's that threatened international security and defeated them. World War I was about batting down overarching Imperialism. World War II saw the end of Fascism. The Cold War was a long and hard slog, but at the end of it, Communism was no longer perceived as a global threat. In each of these three cases, a "new world order" was established as the political tides shifted.
America and its allies are now confronted by the new ism which is upsetting the balance, Terrorism. 9/11/01 marked the birth of a new era in foreign policy, featuring a new focus on a new ism. And I believe that another new world order will have to be created for the specter of terrorism to be largely neutralized as a threat.
Recent events have solidified in my mind the direction that the world must now go in. It's a direction that nobody seems to be talking about or writing about, in politics, the media, or academia. But I think it's the way to go if people of the world are serious about ending international terrorism.
Be not fooled, armchair foreign policy expert: the road will be long, hard, and frought with blood. My solution will have many opponents, amongst Americans as well as others around the globe. If mismanaged, it could backfire and make the problem of terrorism worse. And it has barely any chance in hell of being put in place. That said, hear me out.
On paper, Israel is fighting Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah to the death in Lebanon. The reality is far more complicated than that: Iran, Syria and possibly others are helping the effort against Israel with financing, logistics and moral support. America is meanwhile playing a major role in the war by holding back the dogs barking at Israel to stop the offensive in Lebanon, against virtually ALL of the rest of the world, including most Arab states and EU nations. In effect, the US condones Israel's fierce response, and is very much actively allowing it to happen as the world's only superpower. One word from President Bush, "Stop," and Israel would have no choice but to agree to a ceasefire. Additionally, world leaders would then be united on the premise that Israel has to disengage from its "disproportionate" response.
In 1956 during the Suez Canal crisis, the United States shut down the secret plan hatched by leaders of England, France, and Israel to seize the Suez Canal from Egypt with just such a simple word from President Eisenhower: "No." This sharp reprimand demonstrated that the three other countries were at that point vassals, if still strong allies, of America in a Cold War with bigger fish to fry.
We all know that the United States and Israel have a special relationship, and for the record I believe this closeness is largely justified. Israel is the only true democracy in the Middle Eastern region, its policies are largely secular, its loyalty to us is unquestioned, we do lots of trade in products and people, and like America, Israel has enemies which have sought to harm them using terrorist methods. By having experienced terrorism at the hands of a non-state actor, America can empathize with what Israel goes through.
Meanwhile, a terrorist group called Lashkar-e-Taiba and its affiliates orchestrated the train blasts in Mumbai, India which killed 200 and wounded many more, just before the conflagration in the Middle East began. Lashkar-e-Taiba cannot be dissociated with such groups as the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Although each of these may differ in goals, ideology, and methods, they have a common thread: Islamofascists who attack secular democracies using various methods of terror. Unlike Israel, Indian leaders did not hit back, but instead did what they have always done best: bitched about it.
I bring up L-e-T's attack on India for one simple reason: there is an old saying that those who are the enemies of your enemies, are your friends. The backbone of the New World Order should be formed by a security alliance between the United States, Israel, and India.
Several clarifications are now in order. We know Israel and the United States are buddies. Yes, India is already an ally of Israel. And yes, India is also a close ally of the United States- in fact, both Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush have done a great deal in raising the level of warmth between the two countries. Specifically, Bush has recently lobbied hard to give India a special status which would allow the exchange of nuclear technology, even while India refuses to give up its nuclear-weapons program against the wishes of most of the non-proliferation regime, which America leads. This largely resembles America's silent condoning of Israel's secret nuclear weapon arsenal- and even in that case the U.S. does not openly share nuclear know-how. We are at a historic landmark in U.S.-India relations.
The alliance I speak of, which may take years to form, is far more comprehensive, consequential, and powerful than the friendship that now exists between the three countries: a security pact of obscene proportions never seen before. In this pact, each country will sign a document stating something that I don't think any group of countries in the world have agreed to at this time, linking each inextricably from the other two: If you attack one of us, you have attacked all of us. We will all fight back with all of our military, diplomatic, intelligence, financial and political resources- which we now actively share. And we will DESTROY you.
Why India as part of the alliance? India in many ways holds a critical strategic position which should be of great interest to the rest of the world: as by far the world's largest democracy by population, a rising superpower, (mostly) secular government, emerging leader of the IT marketplace, owning a long border with the other emerging but non-democratic superpower, China, and most importantly, sworn enemy of Islamofascist terrorists, many of whom are spawned in the same massive breeding grounds of neighboring Pakistan and Afghanistan as the enemies of America and Israel. In fact, America's #1 most wanted man, Osama Bin Laden is probably masturbating with Taliban leader Mullah Omar onto the faces of young Lashkar-e-Taiba recruits somewhere in Pakistan, which is right on India's border. American and Israeli intelligence cannot completely penetrate terrorists hiding in Pakistan- but India's can if given the money and technology. Indian spies don't look that different from the terrorists they are trying to hunt down, which is a huge advantage.
The other question is, what do the three countries uniquely have to gain from one another as a Trio that others do not offer- and would each be better off than before? There are so many reasons, I have to list them:
1. No other country for the next 100-200 years would dare invade any of the three countries if they were bound by a security alliance. Israel and India both have multiple countries who have done so in the past few decades, and would love to do so again. In Israel's case, Iran, Syria, and others could be seen as potential threats. India has two allied nuclear-armed countries on its border- China and Pakistan- who have invaded in the past and may be encouraged to do so again.
2. It would help solve the Palestine-Israel problem. Palestininans and other Muslims around the world would finally realize that the only option on the table is a two-state solution with a lasting ceasefire: take it or leave it. Forget musings of wiping Israel off the map, which continue to be in vogue by Arabs and Iranians. It simply won't happen anymore.
3. Any terrorist organization: Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lashkar-e-Taiba, etc. would think twice before sending their suicide bombers in. Each is financed or led by cowards who send young men and women in with bombs strapped to their bodies- while they themselves ride around in nice cars. A combined offensive by the militaries, intelligence agencies, and police forces of the United States, Israel, and India would be formidable, and must immediately be seen as a threat to END any attacking organization from top to bottom. Imagine American money and brute force, Israeli intelligence and experience, and India's dark skin and strategic location being combined and put to bear on an enemy. If America could operate large forward military bases in Israel and India, no threat in the Middle East or Asia would be very far away from being met head-on.
4. Just as important: any country's government that knows that there are terrorists inside its borders will start fearing for its own safety, and will probably begin to move swiftly to deal with an established or developing terrorist threat itself. For political reasons, certain countries only half-heartedly pursue the terrorists within their borders- such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. While it is true that these regimes depend on using caution in cracking down on terrorists for their own survival, the prospect of spy infiltration and military attacks on their soil may cause them to think twice about pussyfooting around their terrorist problems.
5. Obstructionists from within and outside the UN Security Council would be made redundant. Did France say something? Who cares? Russia concerned? China pissed off? Oh, well. The security alliance of the United States, Israel, and India would be free to do pretty much whatever it wanted- as long as the three countries could get along with each other and agree on major foreign policy decisions. This would be far easier to do than trying to pass a resolution in the 8-member Security Council.
6. Democratic forces in India would be strengthened by increased partnership with stable democracies such as the United States and Israel. A stable democracy in India is good for India, the region, as well as for the rest of the world.
7. Dictatorships and monarchies the world over would be so overwhelmed by the new democratic power structure in place, that they would have no choice but to acquiesce to the forces of democracy, or risk being marginalized more and more as time goes on.
8. Together the three countries can work to eliminate the terrorist breeding grounds in South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
9. The trio will provide a shining example of success to the people in the rest of the world, making them realize that peace, prosperity, and representative democracy are the way to achieve a strong society, not the clash of civilizations.
10. Closer military cooperation would lead to even more cooperation in other areas- economic, financial, cultural technological, etc. India's large pool of brainpower and America's enterprising system, along with Israel's fierce drive to succeed, would create an unrivalled team promoting economic growth year after year.
11. Even other democratic allies- Japan, England, Canada, Mexico, etc. will realize that they have no choice but to agree to the foreign policies of the trio. They will eventually become de facto members of the alliance.
Enemies and allies alike will be led to follow the trio. However the USA, India, and Israel will not simply get together and ride off into the sunset after making the terrorists urinate on themselves with fear. There are many challenges for the world's oldest democracy, largest democracy, and only democracy in the Middle East to overcome before their security alliance can be effective or even in place.
India is chock full of some combination of Hindu nationalists, Muslim nationalists, separatists, Marxists, Socialists, and Communists who do not want India aligned with the U.S. Each of these factions holds a stake in the patchwork unity government in power right now. It was just such a cabal which steered India to its policy of "non-alignment" during the Cold War- when the nation chose not to definitively pick sides with either the West or the U.S.S.R. I believe this was foolish- India should have read the tea leaves and joined the Western powers steadily heading toward victory in the Cold War, and helped lift the nation out of protectionism and poverty. And today India needs to finally wake up and smell the Coca-Cola and McDonald's fries: America is going to lead the way things are going to go for a long, long time. India might as well follow the path, rather than offer futile resistance while bitching about American belligerence. America is already India's largest trading partner by far; why not extend this relationship into the realm of security? Why not extend the newfound prosperity attained by following America's capitalist example?
Another hurdle is the strong isolationist tendency inherent in America as well, not related to India or Israel in particular, but the world in general. Many political leaders in America continue to talk about disengaging from the rest of the world, retreating from the adventures abroad and letting the world sort out its own problems, rather than trying to police it. A security alliance which would require America to help protect two far weaker countries will seem like a waste to the isolationists, and even to the hawks who prefer unilateral military actions using America's military dominance, rather than ability to cooperate. However the world is more globalized than ever before, and continues to globalize every single day. The U.S. cannot disengage from the rest of the world. With the internet, high volumes of international trade, airplanes, and deep involvement in foreign wars, America has no choice but to continue on the global worldview trajectory it is currently on. The option to retreat from the rest of the world does not even exist.
Pride in Judaism and country could even derail the Israeli government from joining the pact. Some Israelis do not want to be seen as accepting favors- and may be uneasy about the hundreds of millions of Muslims who live within India and serve in the armed forces. Others want to maintain Israel's independent spirit, or do not want to be seen as an American vassal (though in reality this is already the case). Yet others may be concerned about whether they can trust America or India to come to their aid in a potential time of need, as Israel is clearly the most vulnerable of the three. To be blunt, Israel has the most to gain and the least to lose from a successful alliance. Small, surrounded by enemies, and sitting on the flashpoint of the world's worst conflict, a security alliance would be the best thing that could ever happen to Israel. It would finally help solve the thousands-year old Israel/Palestine conflict.
Next will come the tests of the three countries' will. The first attack is bound to happen at some point soon. Suppose Hamas hits Israel- do the United States and India hit back with everything they've got, despite the fact that Hamas has no beef with them? I say, yes. Send the message that terrorism on the soil of any of these three countries will not be tolerated. And that the United States and India are willing to spend their young soldiers' blood to prove it. And even risk attacks on their own civilians. This will really be what shocks and awes the terrorists-when they realize their fight has been made global, but not on their terms.
Then there is the obvious problem of asymmetry. Israel is tiny and militant; America is rich but overbearing; India is poor, overpopulated and has problems of unity. America and India have never quite put a lot of trust in each other, especially because India has been jealous of America's flirtations with Pakistan over the years. India has had no problems with Hizballah, and remains friendly with some of Israel's enemies. Lashkar-e-Taiba is very focused on getting Kashmir back from India but not much else. India stands to lose a great deal from a failed alliance, especially as it is the weakest militarily, politically, and economically of the three. If the other two pulled out of the alliance for any reason, India could be crushed.
Finally, the rest of the world will boil over in protest, both legitimate and not. Arab countries will rightly feel that they are completely screwed: not only will they be squeezed on both the East and West and in the middle (with an American-occupied Iraq), but they will no longer be able to use their oil influence to set the agenda. There will only be one agenda, and that will be the Trio's agenda. Arab nations could literally fail as a result as people run over their governments. Middle Eastern oil will also probably run out sometime during the life of the security alliance, which will exacerbate the problem.
Another issue to ponder is that the New World Order could become a victim of its own success. The United States, Israel, and India, after initiating a period of world peace and clearly dominating the world stage, could become too overconfident and begin mistreating the rest of the world. They might become bullies due to the unprecedented amount of power. To that I say, whatever. Things would be far better than they are now. We will never achieve perfection in this world- and it is up to the other countries to figure out a way to balance the scales in a legitimate way. This is not such a bad problem to have- especially since representative democracies in recent times have not had the desire to create empires, even given absolute power to do so. That is perhaps one benefit of America's failure in Iraq. The Trio will not seek to colonize everyone else.
The challenges exist, but they can all be overcome.
Once established as an effective way to achieve peace and squash terrorism, a few other countries should be welcomed into joining the security alliance, if they so chose. England, which we established as a vassal state in 1957, would naturally hop on board in the early stages as a natural fit. Others would probably realize who would be buttering their bread in the New World Order, and join in. In particular, I would like to see Japan and Brazil added to the fray so that the alliance has a foothold in South America as well as the Far East, which would tone down rogue nations with thoughts of acting up, such as Venezuela and North Korea. Finally, Australia is almost indistinguishable as a culture from America and should be invited on board. Beyond this point, the alliance would run into the problem of basic management- it is easier to have a group of 6 countries agree to something than a group of 60.
Some countries have been left off of the initial list by design. China and Russia in particular, who hold permanent spots on the United Nations Security Council, would not be pleased in the least. Too bad. They do not qualify because they continue to make a mockery of democracy and cannot be trusted in a security alliance. The UN Security Council is already more or less redundant. Countries such as France and Germany will continue to feel like has-beens, but that is simply the truth. Their distaste for American hegemony, or hegemony by anyone besides themselves, will keep them out of a security alliance with anyone except perhaps one another.
My oversimplified and only partially-explored theory is, to those of you familiar with international political theory, a strict interpretation largely based on realism. Realism states that all of international relations must be seen primarily through the prism of power- more so than other ideals such as justice. A military alliance is all about power. Power is what the terrorists want. It is what could end terrorism. It is what always drives foreign policy, as we are coming to learn more and more. It reduces countries into individual actors, rather than cauldrons of internal and external politics (which is why in this essay, I referred to countries and terrorist organizations as if they were "people"- an admittedly extreme reduction and way of thinking). If used in the right way, my solution can guide the world into many years of prosperity and peace- through the defeat of terrorism, as well as other non-democratic forces. To become a believer, you have to first accept as I do that democracy is inherently good, and terrorism is inherently bad. With power in the wrong hands, the end could be nigh. Welcome to the New World Order.