Misconception about War on Terror in Third World Countries

Muhammad Ijaz

Email. [email protected]

Since the rise of renaissance in Europe, the world political scenario witnessed almost three models of international politics whose sole purpose was to grab the natural resources of third world countries and recessive societies. These models of international politics were justified by their respective ideological justifications, like colonial model was justified by the “white man’s burden theory”. Meanwhile after the decayed colonialism, bipolar politics of USA and USSR was justified by capitalism and communism, and after the breakdown of USSR, uni polar world order was justified by imperialism and regional politics. However, all these validations were given by the super power’s politics for the third world and developing countries and sole purpose was to create hegemonic role, in their own interest, over the natural resources of third world countries and, therefore, increasing the economic strength of super power’s politics over third world societies.
Interestingly, this phenomena of international politics was to cash their materialistic interests through different war techniques, such as colonial masters of Europe established their colonies through traditional war culture and got edge through the new inventions in the form of weapons of war and, thereby, ruled over the rest of the world through their subjective sense of superiority in the field of education, state formation, institution making, and agricultural raw material for the industries. Meanwhile during the bipolar world order, the war transformed into a new form called as proxy war. During that period from 1945 to 1990, the third world countries with a weaker sense of nationalism became the victim of the clash of interests of two giants of world politics after the 2nd world war. Finally, on the breakdown of USSR, emergence of uni polar politics in the world politics was justified by the imperialistic approach. Though the aim of unipolar politics remained alike the previous world political models. Initially, the unipolar politics of USA followed the proxy war methodology to create hegemonic role but in the 2nd year of the 21st century, American hegemonic politics took the edge of War on Terrorism to hold its doctrine regarding direct intervention in the countries and imposed its ideas on the rest of world communities.
The methodology of war on terror was designed and introduced to the world community in a clever way and abruptly after 9/11 not even a single state or community could reject the stance of USA including its rival countries. USA shrewdly cashed the sympathy of world community and also of its opponent countries in the regional politics and grew its influence in Central Asian territory which was earlier out of range for geographical reasons. War on terror was designed in a different manner from the traditional and proxy war. Through this, USA made a new world order in a way which targeted those countries which didn’t come under its influence due to established monarch or where the rulers governed their respective states without owing the interest of USA. However, through this methodology of war and alliances, USA got NOC from the UNO to interfere and penetrate in the societies without even considering the concept of sovereignty of state and society. Through war on terror, USA entered in Afghanistan where it ousted the established government of Taliban in Afghanistan which was considered pro-terrorist government and, therefore, dethroned Taliban and established the Pro-USA minority based government.
After starting war on terror in Afghanistan, USA, on the behalf of the combination of pre-emptive doctrine and catastrophic terrorism, opened another war border in Iraq to show the world community that Saddam’s government is problematic for world’s peace. After Iraq, next war stage was designed in Maghreb countries in the name of Arab spring where USA and NATO forces transformed nationalist rulers in accordance with the Pro-USA and NATO’s ideology.
Finally a big question is raised over the understanding of war on terrorism which was explained by the USA to the world community and on that understanding USA so far has remained successful in grabbing the third world societies and getting direct access at grass root levels without considering their right for sovereignty, for example, drone attacks in FATA. Pakistani government and the army, both were unable to take actions to secure the sovereignty. Similarly in Afghanistan, Iraq, Labia and Egypt such types of activities were considered as legal because behind these actions governments of the respective countries were involved. In war of terrorism, governments were unable to protect the concept of sovereignty of state because of the Bush doctrine. While on the other hand, the countries which were problematic due to freedom fighting in their respective lands remained successful in imposing the definition of terrorism that was given by unipolar politics and crushed the freedom fighters such as Tamil Nadu’s issue in Sri-Lanka, Kashmiri Mujahids in India and Israel who successfully declared Hamas and PLO’s fighters as terrorist and won the war of territory on the behalf of Bush Doctrine.
Along with other Muslim countries, Pakistan too faced hardships to own Bush doctrine over war on terror. It suffered in multiple ways such as losing more than 300 billion dollars economic interest along with more than 70,000 casualties and by owning the dead bodies of 10,000 martyrs of our army, police and border security forces. But at the same time, our rulers were unable to understand the phenomena of new world order along with the importance of our geographical location that was used by the unipolar politics. The personal interest of our ruling class was also manipulated within the perspective of national interest. War on terror was imposed over us that made us lose our sovereignty as well as our national interest. Unintentionally we became a part of unipolar politics to create new world order initially but after 2003, we got the point of “pre-emptive doctrine” when USA imposed the war on Iraq and justified it with the perspective of “catastrophic terrorism”. In the WOT, the expected wave of catastrophic terrorism is going to be highlighted by the unipolar politics so that USA brainwashes the world community over Iraq issue, where it remained successful to some extent in getting the sympathy of UK to attack on Iraq. For Pakistan, it was alarming because the doctrine of catastrophic terrorism will also be indicated towards it in the blame games of nuclear proliferations. This was the period in which Pakistan diverted the attention of USA towards “Good Taliban”, whereby, the strategy of USA compelled Pakistan not to follow them blindly because the trap of international politics was ready in the name of catastrophic terrorism.
Now a day, after nineteen years, the policies of unipolar politics are to be understood by the regional politics as well as by the third world countries. For the first time it is going to be countered by Pakistan also because at the eve of UNO General Assembly session, our PM resisted the theory of radicalism that was announced by Trump along with Indian PM. Though, this is not enough because we have to counter this policy on both the platforms of hard power and soft power so that we do not become the victim of it. We have to watchdog the links of our domestic politics with the international state actors and counter their policies regarding radicalism and fundamentalism in order to save our nation and state from the expected plot of international politics that is in making under the patronage of Uncle SAM in the region.

Check Also

Why World becomes unstable now-a-days?

Rahib Ali Rind; Now-a-days the world is more chaotic and unpredictable than at any other …