The epochal events of September 11 altered the structure of the international system and changed the way the world viewed contemporary events. September 11 has shifted the attention of the international community from China to South West Asia and the Gulf, much to the consternation of the European community, who are concerned about the new political problems and alliances that may emerge. This apocryphal event also represents the downside of globalisation, which is the nourishment of international terrorism. 

     The term ‘war on terror’ reeks of American sensationalism. Instead of speaking on ‘globalism or regionalism,’ Dr Rolfe preferred to speak about ‘globalisation’ and ‘regionalisation,’ as he was more concerned about process than ideology. 

     Globalisation denotes a withering away of the State. The end of the Second World War brought about an erosion of political and economic boundaries. Economic liberalisation has resulted in relaxation of rules and barriers easy flow of money in the economy. However, the State is supreme for, in times of crisis, it is the State, which is empowered to steer the nation out of crisis. For instance, when East Asia was in the throes of a financial crisis in 1997, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad put a halt to currency movements and the State fought to restore normalcy and prevent the economy from going bankrupt. 

     The spread of culture is resulting in the evolution of a homogenous international culture. This element plays a significant role in unifying the world. Globalisation, in a political sense, implies the unification of the world under a single system. 

     At an elementary level, regionalisation is about consultation, cooperation and, eventually, the integration of states. There is nothing unusual about bilateral consultations between countries, or their cooperating with each other, but the integration of countries is unusual. Coordination and cooperation between the ASEAN countries has been limited, and has more rhetoric than action. However, rhetoric cannot be dismissed as inconsequential, and is instrumental in leading to substantive action. It might appear that SAARC meetings are only indulge in rhetoric, but the body is only 17 years old, and they have achieved a great deal. The European Union took much longer to resolve its differences and spent more time in their early days on rhetoric rather than real work. Thus, eventually, it is the interaction of civil societies, which fosters mutual cooperation and harmony, and governments cannot ignore this fact. Independent of whether governments desire it, their societies would have integrated. 

     A great deal of informal trade activities is essentially smuggling. This is not captured through tax revenues, but economic analysts might disagree. However, the fact that regionalism is happening at a fast pace is, indeed, a fact. 

     Though numerous wars against terrorism have been fought, there is only one which has generated substantial interest, viz. the anarchic ‘War on Terror’ directed against the Al Qaeda. The phrase ‘War on Terror’ has become an accepted term because never have American interests been so adversely hit.  

     The role of the state has enhanced in the current geo-political scenario, to avoid the dissolution of the state into anarchy. However, it would be no exaggeration to say that the ‘War on Terror’ is being used as an omnibus excuse. The US has spread itself in Central and South Asia, much to the discomfort of China. The US can have only one big idea at a time, to suit its interests; be it the strategic importance of Pakistan or the reforms in Iraq. The US appointed some officials and offered help to the Philippines government to combat the Abu Sayyef, but this was done as it suited the US campaign against terrorism, not out of genuine concern for the Philippines people. 

     Dr Rolfe recommended some steps to combat the conflict situations arising out of regionalisation and globalisation. 

• Rhetoric and implementation are two separate issues. SAARC should get down to implementing the declarations they have agreed upon in various summits. For instance, the declaration on terrorism was not incorporated in individual national legislations.  

• Terrorism is transnational, and the solution for it should cut across state boundaries. International cooperation is essential for countering state sponsored terrorism. One can afford to dilute sovereignty for eliciting cooperation. 

• The root causes of poverty and education need to be addressed, as deprivation tempts people to resort to violence in the region. 

•  Civil society needs to be active. A society with no alienation among its people can be stable. Good governance is the basis of a stable society. 

Discussion

     Some of the points raised in the discussion were:

• There needs to be a more clear discussion on the war on terrorism. Has someone been able to clarify the concepts underlying the same? The Nepalese have declared the Maoists to be terrorists. Are they terrorists? A similar case happened in Sri Lanka. The LTTE has always been dismissed as terrorists, but they are actually fighting for their own nation. A clear definition of terrorism needs to be evolved by the international community. 

•  The global agenda seems to be driven by the war against terrorism. The campaign seems to reflect US unilateralism. India has been a victim of terrorism for over 12 years, but got no support from the US before September 11. In this era of globalisation, America simply cannot afford to be isolationist, even though it is evident that the US detests being dictated terms to. 

•  The United States has always wanted India to exercise restraint. India exercises restraint because it foresees the consequences of any punitive action. The US also understands this. 

•  Rhetoric apart, SAARC needs to chalk out a fresh agenda and implement the steps talked about and discussed. On several occasions, the size of India has been used as an excuse to explain why SAARC is not as successful as ASEAN, but that is unacceptable. 

•  The terrorists always have economic issues in mind, as there is a vital link between economic and political causes. The ‘War Against Terror’ has to keep these factors in mind, and weaken the sources from where the terrorists got their funds. These sources can only be attacked if the individual economies are made transparent and accountable. 

•  There is a strong and urgent need to address poverty, because small groups are unable to get anyone to address their problems.  

•  Individual governments need to work hard at eradicating bad governance. Lack of economic and employment opportunities generate unrest among the people.   

•  Law and Order problems should not be confused with terrorist activities. For instance, in Mizoram, the chief minister of the State was an insurgent leader at one point. Methods need to be evolved methods by which terrorism at the regional level is tackled. 

•  While globalisation and regionalisation are linked with each other, the hegemonistic ideology of the United States emerges as a sore point. The concern in the Indian subcontinent is with China and not the United States. 

•  The sovereignty of the State cannot be ignored. One can question the coercive nature of states, but the era of globalisation cannot lead to the denial of political sovereignty.  

•  Terrorism cannot be deified in any manner. Economic discontent is the breeding ground for a number of political insurgencies. For instance, the Naxalite movement spiralled because of this. 

•  It appears that the United States is pursuing economic and strategic deployments in Kyrgystan and Uzbekistan.

•  Apart from security threats, there is a conflict of civilisational values. Countries like China and Japan are pursuing a different world order. Japan might have a trade balance of US$70 billion, but still feels threatened by China. Will democracy ever be acceptable to China? The issues of security and military threats are not the only ones of importance; human rights and democratic values also need to be paid heed to.