Bulatlat.com

Analysis:
Committing without Bargaining

The pledges of support extended by a number of countries in America’s so-called campaign against ‘international terrorism’ were not without conditions. Countries like Pakistan made sure they are getting something in return. The Philippines is perhaps the only exception.

BY BOBBY M. TUAZON
Bulatlat.com

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo may take a lesson or two from the United States’ quest to build a broad coalition of nations to support its so-called war against “international terrorism.” Many governments have pledged their support for the war effort – albeit in varying degrees and forms – but not without some concessions from Washington. In short, a quid pro quo deal.

Pakistan, which had long supported the Taliban, was finally persuaded to withdraw its embassy from Kabul and pledged support for the U.S. war effort. The deal: the United States’ lifting of economic sanctions imposed on Islamabad, a rescheduling of Pakistan’s $329-million foreign debt and $50 million in aid. In addition, American allies Japan and European Union also pledged $40 million in aid apiece.

Pakistani President Gen. Perez Musharaff was also assured that any deal about a new government in Kabul would involve his country.

Musharaff also received a bonus: an American pledge to broker his country’s bloody territorial dispute with India over Kashmir. The territory, populated by Muslims but ruled by a Hindu, is claimed by both Pakistan, an Islamic country, and India, which is Hindu-dominated.

India, sanctions against whom were also lifted, capped by a similar rescheduling of debt, also vowed support for the United States.

Chinese support

Shortly after the September 11 attacks on Washington and New York, Chinese President Jiang Zemin issued a strong condemnation, saying that the “role of the U.S. should be brought into full play in the Afghan conflict.” China is a major market and trading partner of the United States and its entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO), which takes effect in November, had the support of Washington.

In exchange for its support, Beijing expects Washington to soften its criticisms against reported human rights abuses in China. That being expected, Beijing can then step up its crackdown on some eight million Uighur Muslim militants who are fighting for a separate state in Xinjiang in northwest China. Leading Muslim separatists are said to have trained in Afghanistan.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has also clinched similar commitments from Washington: continued assistance by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and non-interference by either the United States or the European Union in its war against the Muslim-dominated Chechen.

In an unusual twist, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has promised support for the U.S. war even as he attacked Osama bin Laden for using the Palestinian cause to incite Muslim militancy against the U.S. That’s because U.S. President George W. Bush pledged to work for a “Palestinian state,” a declaration which is supported by British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Two-fold objective

This new policy of the U.S. government, a staunch ally of Palestine’s arch-enemy Israel, had a two-fold objective: to secure Arafat’s support for the American war effort while putting a halt to the Israeli-Palestinian war, and to broaden the support of Arab nations who are perceived as sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, behind Bush’s Operation Enduring Freedom.

But Bush also made sure he would get the strong support of pro-U.S. Arab countries including Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates by pledging more military aid to them. The military aid is expected to be used to help quell Muslim fundamentalist unrest in their own countries which has been generated by the air attacks against Muslim Afghanistan.

Uzbekistan, a former Soviet territory lying just north of Afghanistan, has allowed the extended use of Khanabad, the biggest air base in Central Asia, as a staging post for American operations against bin Laden and the Taliban forces. More than 2,000 U.S. troops are already there. In return, a security pact is reported to have been reached between Uzbekistan and the United States, with the latter also pledging economic support and investment.

Countries which have pledged support for the U.S. war did not, however, tie their hands fully to Washington’s military agenda even as they fashioned their promises of support in a calibrated way. Musharaff asked the U.S.-led coalition forces to shorten their air strikes. Jiang Zemin advised the Americans to limit their attacks to “clearly defined targets” without hitting civilians. The Arab states, on the other hand, hinted that extending the air attacks to Iraq could force them to withdraw their support.

Exception

In contrast, President Arroyo, even without being reportedly approached by Washington, immediately pledged her government’s support to U.S. retaliatory actions against the bin Laden network and the Taliban. Even without being reportedly asked, she also opened the facilities of the former U.S. military bases at Clark, Angeles City and Subic, Olongapo to Operation Enduring Freedom forces.

Critics argued that Arroyo’s unilateral pledge of support should not have been made without at least seeking a similar rescheduling of the country’s foreign debt or a review of the country’s bilateral trade with the United States.

The arrival of American military advisers supposedly to help Philippine authorities eliminate the Abu Sayyaf Group in southern Mindanao can be a form of assistance. But this is more in line with the U.S. war against “global terrorism” rather than a show of concern to the Philippines’ kidnap-for-ransom problem.

American promise of military aid – even in the form of second-hand military equipment – is yet to be seen. Washington would rather pump more fresh military aid into Israel, the Arab states, Indonesia and now, possibly Pakistan and Uzbekistan rather than to a second-rate country like the Philippines. Bulatlat.com

We want to know what you think of this article.