Changing Equations in the War against Terrorism
27 Sep, 2001 · 585
Arpit Rajain argues that the choices that states make are governed by their supreme national interest but the moment calls for forging an alliance against a common foe
The deliberate attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon on 11 September have re-emphasised the issue of supreme national interests if international responses are any indication. As President Bush and his team of advisors set about the task of forging a broad coalition against an enemy that has no defined borders, other countries are likely to position themselves keeping their supreme national interests in mind.
US
has no option but to involve other states since there is a growing conviction that the
US
should not do it alone. Moreover, the
US
needs to legitimize any military action. Hence it is in dialogue with NATO,
Australia
,
Britain
,
Canada
,
Israel
,
Kuwait
, France,
Germany
,
Indonesia
,
Japan
,
Russia
,
Turkey
,
Iran
,
Sweden
and the countries in the neighbourhood-Pakistan,
Afghanistan
,
China
and
India
.
Britain
, the closest
US
ally has pledged to work “shoulder to shoulderâ€Â
In a world of opposing interests and conflicts, moral principles can only be realised by the balancing of interests and resolution of conflicts. Increasing power and prestige is manifested in the conduct of foreign policy. All states work within the same problematique: states define the same goals (survival), identify the same threats (power imbalances), and choose between similar courses of action (internal and external balancing).
The
Some of the countries that are US allies have offered strong support.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
