The similarities certainly passed through my mind, John (good article btw):
There was no sign back in September that Bush imagined that other countries might claim comparable rights, but that is what has happened.
In the case of India, however, because of its close ethnic and familial ties, I really have a harder time believing it's more than opportunistic sabre-rattling. For one, India's leadership felt miffed that Musharraf was so readily embraced by the US at the outset. Certainly, the attack on Parliament demanded an aggressive response, and emulating more Israel than the US, India's leadership started making demands of 'shut up & deliver' to Musharraf, akin to Sharon's treatment of Arafat - despite the fact that they are entirely different animals.
It is the ethnic & familial ties, however, that causes me to doubt this will escalate close to a nuclear confrontation. As well, as I noted before, there's too many big countries downwind...
The Russians & Chinese are different matters entirely. Is Chechnya a self-determination matter, or do they stray into terrorism? Is the Uighur separatist movement a religious freedom issue or is it Islamist extremism on a different front? I am insufficiently versed on either to mount an opinion.
For the moment, gaining the military support of former Soviet states of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan seemed important enough to our leaders that they turned their backs on Chechnya. As for the China/Uighur situation, I don't think it created a moment's consternation, as I've never heard any leadership, past or present, even acknowledge it as a matter of US concern.
The question remains: does our leadership now maintain that all acts against a state by its lesser-armed citizens automatically become defined as terrorism, or is there some line drawn that we've yet to hear? Imo, the separatist movement within Kashmir is not the same; Pakistan only added fuel to an existing fire whose legitimacy is covered by UN resolutions dating back to the division of Pakistan/India.
For the time being, it's in our national interest for our leadership to not draw lines that could push Russia or China away. But the second question remains: will the nearterm national interest once again create unintended consequences down the road that we'll rue?
Again, I'm too iggerant to formulate a fair response to either question. |
