Time major powers end their petty bickering
Meeting less than 48 hours after the horrific attacks in Paris, world leaders at the G20 summit in Turkey have expectedly put the scourge of terrorism at the top of their agenda. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has called for shutting down terror funding channels while US President Barack Obama has highlighted the need for eliminating the Islamic State terror group, which orchestrated not just carnage in Paris but also claimed the November 12 suicide bombing in Beirut, the downing of a Russian passenger airliner in Sinai on October 31 and a deadly bomb blast in Ankara on October 10 — not to mention the unending bloodshed in Iraq and Syria. There are reports that the G20 may put out a separate statement on terrorism. In general, the talk of putting up a united front against terrorism has gained currency.
This is all well and good, but there are still no indications if there will be a global ground response to the the Islamic State in particular or terrorism in general. French President François Hollande has said that the Paris attack was an act of war, but there is no telling yet if he will respond by putting French boots in Syria and Iraq or even call for a joint Nato operation against the Islamic State.
Also, there had been talk of a global response to the Islamic State even before the Paris attack, but to little effect. For example, the loose Western coalition, led by the US, that has been bombing Islamic State targets for several months with only limited effectiveness, has never had the support of Russia — which is a major player given that it is propping up the Assad regime in Syria. Only recently did Russia start its own anti-Islamic State campaign, but that has displeased the Americans and the Europeans who see the Russian operation as more pro-Assad than anti-Islamic State (to be fair to the Russians, those lines are hard to define). Then there is the entire lot of regional powers — Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Qatar and Israel — who have their own conflicting interests and priorities to sort out before they can agree on how to fight the Islamic State. Also, it remains to be seen how emerging powers like India contribute to a global effort, if there is one.
Moreover, terrorism today is not just the Islamic State but also includes, for example, Boko Haram in Nigeria, the Taliban and the Haqqani network in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as also the laskhar-e-Tayyeba. In each of these cases, there has been even less of an agreement among world powers on how, if at all, to fight back. Boko Haram had its 15 minutes of fame last year with the ‘Bring Back Our Girls’ campaign, but since then it has been largely ignored even as it continues with its daily atrocities. Similarly, India's plight in the face of repeated terror attacks from Pakistan was ignored (if not deliberately whitewashed), until 9/11 and later 26/11 somewhat changed the discourse.
The fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan too has been undermined from the very start by the West's refusal to take Pakistan to task. Also, if Pakistan is the global nursery where terrorists are nourished and raised, Saudi Arabia is the Wahhabi womb wherejihadi terror is conceived. And there is simply nothing to suggest that world leaders are prepared to strike at the root-cause of the problem.