Preparing for the 3rd millennium
Are we on the threshold of World War IV?

Will the new millennium herald the much-feared Armageddon?Is Kashmir on the way to becoming Asia’s cockpit? Will Israel’s ‘ethno-bomb’ provide the climax to clash of civilisations? Are cyber-battles going to be the mainstay to the new millennium’s wars? Will India emerge as the new super power that would ‘Hinduise’ the world? Is it possible for the largely emaciated South to dominate the prosperous and stronger North, ask Randeep and A. N. Wadehra.

IT might sound far-fetched but World War III is already over. Euphemistically dubbed as Cold War, it was unconventional and unique. Its dimensions were global, the presence of the nonaligned countries notwithstanding. It was a clash of two dominant ideologies that resulted in the fall of one in the most dramatic manner. The victorious Capitalism is based on--among other things--the free market principle, wherein the day-to-day experiences in the marketplace help in elucidating human behaviour when confronted with choices. No regimentation. No mushy idealism. A free rein to human enterprise!

Socialism, on the other hand, held out a dream that was utopian in concept and doomed to failure owing to the inherent impracticability of the idea. There was virtually no differentiation on the basis of variation in qualitative contribution by different individuals. Consequently, the ideal got distorted when applied to actual conditions. Regimentation, theoretically an anathema to socialists, had become the hallmark of the Soviet style of governance. Dictatorship of the proletariat in fact gave way to oligarchy formed by a clutch of vested interests. Paradoxically, it was the socialist ideal and its credo of humanism that had prompted the Capitalist society to become egalitarian.

The end of WW-II saw the rise of a bipolar world with the USA and the Soviet Union becoming the two ‘super powers’, each having a distinct sphere of influence. In fact, William Fox, an American scholar, had coined the term ‘super powers’ in 1944. A ‘super power’s’ presence is global. Other countries like Japan, France, Germany, Britain and China could be described as great powers as they commanded strong regional influence, either owing to their military might or the financial clout. Since 1945, rapid technological advances have transformed military profiles everywhere. Radars, missiles, atomic weapons, computers, satellites and related electronic equipment have lent punch, speed and variety to the armed forces.

After the German capitulation in WW-II, the Allies, especially the USA and Great Britain, had given serious thought to declaring war on the Soviet Union and thus get rid of a potential threat. The fact that only the USA then had the proven capacity to use the atomic bomb was an added incentive. But the world at large and the people of the USA and the UK in particular were already tried of the long and ghastly war. The popular sentiment craved for peace. The idea had to be abandoned.

Later events proved Churchill right. The Soviet Union did become a strong rival of the West both ideologically and militarily, leading to the Cold War that might well be described as World War III by future historians. This was fought as much for capturing the human mind as for the earth’s natural resources that were in abundance in the newly independent Third World countries. Latin America, Africa and Asia became the new battlegrounds for a different type of global conflict.

Barring Cuba, the Capitalist Uncle Sam had the entire Latin America under his sway. This region provided ready market to the goods mass produced in the USA. If a Salvador Allende did raise the Socialist flag in Chile, he was ruthlessly crushed. Similarly, Central Asia became part of the Soviet Empire.Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Azebaijan, Turkmanistan etc are all rich in natural resources, including the precious hydrocarbons.

Therefore, the real struggle was on for other regions like Africa, the Middle East as well as SouthEast Asia. The Arab-Isreal conflict, the Korean and Vietnam wars were essentially part of this struggle for control of world resources. The battle was ding-dong but the Soviet bloc had an edge in as much as the NAM that consisted of resource-rich poor countries was more or less a Soviet camp follower.

However, over a period of time cracks began to appear in both the blocs. Communist China, unwilling to play second fiddle to the Soviets, started asserting its independence as early as in 1958 when its erstwhile benefactors tried to rein in its ambitions vis-a-vis Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists. The arm-twisting prompted Mao to have a self-reliant nuclear weapons programme for his country.

Similarly, distrustful of the efficacy of the US nuclear umbrella, France launched its own independent nuclear weapons programme. Instantly, the NATO Allies dubbed it maverick. Meanwhile, the two super powers as well as the lesser nuclear power states kept on building and deploying atomic weapons.

In fact, the two power blocs and China had already developed military doctrines that did not rule out a full-scale nuclear war. US Admiral Gene La Rouche, the then Director, Centre of Defence Information, Washington, had written in the July, 1978, issue of Defence Monitor"....Nuclear war is an integral part of American military planning and the US is prepared to use nuclear weapons anywhere in the world." As late as September 20,1983, The Economic Times had quoted the then US Under Secretary Edward C. Aldridge as saying, "...until recently US efforts had assumed that space was a sanctuary... We do not have to stretch our imagination very far to see that the nation that controls space controls the world." The same news item also quotes Air Force General Robert T. Marsh as testifying before the Congressional Committee: "The US should move into war-fighting capabilities, that is, ground-to space, space-to space and space-to- ground" No wonder, the USA had set up a separate Space Command. Their military strategists firmly believed that "the only finish line in space weapons race would be war."

After the Soviet Union’s fall, the world has become multi-polar with the USA as the only super power. Among the lesser posers, Israel had acquired nuclear status immediately after the 1967 war. South Africa developed a nuclear arsenal with Israeli and West European help. Even Pakistan — if the contents of ZA Bhutto’s testament, If I am Assassinated, are to be believed — had begun its bomb-building efforts in 1972. China and the European Union are the major power factors that could help maintain a semblance of military balance in the world. Russia and Ukraine too cannot be completely written off. But for all practical purposes the USA has won the space race, at least for the time being.

This takes the international military scenario to an entirely different plane. Due to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, holocaust appears to have become much more real. At the same time, despite ruling the space, the USA finds itself unable to dictate terms to lesser powers as is clear from the Balkans experience where Serbia brazenly resorted to or encouraged ethnic cleanising in its own territory, in Bosnia and later in Kosovo despite the US warnings. Admittedly, the Russian patronage of the Serbs was a vital factor. The Chinese support to Pakistan and North Korea had neutralised the US attempts to bring these two countries to heal on the nuclear proliferation and missile technology transfer issues. The current strategic partnership between India and France and the new deals on weapon systems and restricted technologies with Russia are pointers to the fact that new power equations are in the offing.

On the basis of the above, what would be the scenario in the coming millennium? According to a Pentagon report, China will have the industrial capacity to produce 1000 ballistic missiles in a decade. By 2002, the Red Army’s Air Force will have deployed land-attack Cruise missiles, ICBMs and the short-range DF-31 missiles. Already it has developed a missile that can hit the US West Coast. Even the European Union is a formidable power. Its share in the world exports is about 40 per cent (after taking into account the intra-EU trade), which is much more than that of the USA. EU’s industrial base might be able to greatly enhance its already awesome military power.

Despite China’s, and to some extent India’s, achievements the EU remains the USA’s main rival in space race. Nevertheless, the Union suffers from several infirmities akin to the ones suffered by the once mighty Hapsburg Empire, namely religious, ethnic, linguistic and economic disparities being further accentuated by intense localism. China, too, can pose only a limited check to the USA military might, given its own problems with its ethnic minorities.

There is thus a great probability of chaos in the world order, leading to local conflicts that might have global repercussions. Already, the Americas, Africa, Asia and Europe have several areas of conflict. Indonesia is experiencing the aftermath of intense civil war. China’s aggressive designs on Vietnam and other SE Asian countries are a real threat. The Indo-Pak border is very much ‘live’. The combined US-UK forces are sporadically conducting air strikes against Iraq. The Iranian military and Afghanistan’s Taliban forces are standing eyeball to eyeball. The Kurd problem that initially involve Iraq, Iran and Turkey has the potential of triggering a global conflict. Rwanda, Nigeria and other countries in Africa are facing internal strife and external aggression. The situation is no different in Latin America where the recent havoc in Nicaragua, Honduras etc. will give the ultras an opportunity to step up violence there, and in other Latin American countries like Peru, Argentina etc. In Canada, the French- speaking Quebec might nurture extremism in future. Similarly, the Balkans, Cyprus, South Ireland and the Basque territory are capable of escalating violence in Europe.

World War IV might not be fought as cohesively as W W-I and WW-II were, or be clothed in ideological finery a la the Cold War, but is bound to cause much more intensive and extensive damage globally. Despite the professed justifications for the wars earlier, the reasons were related to monopolisation of the world’s productive resources. Now that the moralistic mask has been shed, aggressions are going to be far more brazen. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Israeli reluctance to return the Palestinian land, the Chinese claims on Taiwan, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh etc... the conflicts might be more fierce in the natural-resource rich Central Asian countries that are vulnerable to powerful neighbours like China, Turkey and even Pakistan.

India, too, faces a threat to its marine wealth in the Indian Ocean. The Chinese and Pakistani naval build-up cannot be ignored. The fate of weaker littoral states can well be imagined once the struggle for ‘colonisation’ of seabeds begins.

Another weapon that was once used in its crude form and has now been refined to perfection is ‘Newspeak’. The propaganda machineries of Goebbels and that of the Allies had played a significant role in World War II. During the Cold War, the West and the Soviets came up with innovative techniques to spread disaffection in the opposing blocs through novels, comics, movies and radio programmes. Despite its earlier advantage and the high pedestal on which it was installed, the Soviet point of view lost out to the western ideology. Now a quasi-cultural war is on. This time around, television and the Internet are the preferred media. The ‘West is best’ syndrome, however, is being increasingly challenged by the Asian cultural knights.

Nevertheless, there are more sinister developments on the modern indoctrination front. On the Internet, one can see an array of viewpoints let loose by various governments, terrorists, anarchists, religious fundamentalists and countless other ethnic and politico-cultural denominations. However, one must concede that despite the venom spewed forth in the cyber streets, we are presented with an opportunity to learn of the dangers that lurk on the periphery of the world order. These dangers can become a real menace if drawbacks in the existing mainstream arrangements are not attended to. Time and again, we have watched how the one time ‘lunatic fringe’,becomes the ominous mainstream. The cyber battles will certainly be crucial in deciding the fortunes of belligerents in World War-IV that might take place in the coming millennium.

In his book, The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel Huntington envisages a crippling war between China and the USA, whereafter India emerges a dominant power with the capability to shape the world order along "Hindu lines". He also foresees the southward shift of power balance with Indonesia becoming another powerful entity in the Australia-Asia region. But going by the recent turmoil in Indonesia and the ‘fall’ of the so-called Asian Tigers, Huntington’s thesis appears shaky.

Even Paul Kennedy’s prediction in his book,The Rise and Fall of The Great Powers, that the ‘rise of the Pacific region is likely to continue’ has been disproved substantially, if not wholly. Ironically, while Huntington sees China and Japan as major opponents of the West, and the Soviets as the latter’s reluctant allies, Kennedy foresees China and Japan as West’s allies in a 21st century conflict against the Soviets. Neither of the two pundits foresaw the Soviet empire’s disintegration. One is also reminded of another book, World War 3 edited by Shelford Bidwell, wherein it was speculated that the third global war would be fought between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries with West Germany as the main arena. However, the very premises for their respective hypothesis have vanished.

Certain writers like James Adams have sought to portray cyberspace as the fifth dimension to global warfare. New technologies are reportedly being developed that will be capable of bringing a country’s economy to a standstill. The electricity grid will be disrupted, trains and aeroplanes won’t function. Banking systems would collapse. In fact, it is being asserted that computer controlled warfare will replace the conventional and nuclear wars. Adam’s supporters go so far as to assert that cyber wars will make both conventional armies and nuclear weaponry redundant! But there is a drawback in this hypothesis. You will still need men and weaponry to destroy the enemy’s military personnel and hardware in order to take possession of the enemy territory or to secure your own boundaries. After all, one cannot live in cyberspace only.

The 21st century global war might be more on the model of the proxy war currently being fought fought by Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir. It presents several advantages to the aggressor. Given the nuclear proliferation, proxy war substantially reduces the risk of atomic conflagration. The costs in term of men and material, too, are lesser as compared to the conventional war.

The Press reports that Israel has developed a biological bomb that would selectively target Arabs only have added a new dimension to low key warfare. Similar ‘ethno-bombs’ can be developed by different countries making the world all the more vulnerable to unpredictable catastrophes. This will certainly help camouflage such obnoxious phenomena as genocide and apartheid.

This trend might pick up in several parts of the world, especially the Middle East, where Israel might try to do a ‘Lebanon’ in Syria, China might like to have leftist regimes in Saudi Arabia and other oil rich Sheikhdoms, Taiwan is another possible target for the Mainland Chinese regime. Iran might try to replace the Taliban regime in Afghanistan with one that would be more amicable to Iranian sensitivities. Let us not forget that the oil boom has hardly benefited a majority of the common Arabs. There would be no dearth of desperadoes to do the bidding of hegemonistic powers. India might actively support separatist elements in Sindh, Pakhtoonistan and Baluchistan.

In the Kargil crisis, the spectre of nuclear holocaust has been raised, especially after the intemperate language used by the Pakistani military brass. Their insistence on the right to first nuclear strike is causing anxiety in several parts of the world. Yet it is improbable that the Pakistani hotheads are unaware of the dangers of their own existence in the aftermath of such an eventuality. A conventional war appears very much on the cards that might, just might, take us to the brink of the ultimate catastrophe. This is what is exercising the minds of the G-8 members.

Despite indications to the contrary, anarchy on such a large scale might just not happen. Chaos would offer conditions conducive to nuclear holocaust. Those of us who do not realise the implications of a nuclear war, even of a ‘low intensity’ or ‘tactical’ variety must read F. Raphael’s Hiroshima. The account of the first nuclear attack’s aftermath is given in an abridged form in the book prescribed by the CBSE for the Plus Two students. The innate common sense of man and his deep instinct for self-preservation is bound to impel him towards a solution that might avert the catastrophe. No matter what form the World War -II takes, it is bound to affect adversely all the denizens of this planet. And no one would like to see the end of human race. Would one?