Other perspectives - pakobserver.com
Avoid the divide - Muhammad Ahsan Yatu
Global warlords, Americans and their one time sponsored militants the Afghan and Arab warlords, and their supporters in Pakistani religious organisations and establishment have turned Afghanistan into such a miserable country where no single solution seems practical. That is why division of Afghanistan on ethnic lines is being talked about since long and it has again raised head in the news, opinions and analysis. No doubt the division would bring peace to Afghanistan but who would guarantee the continuation of peace. Again the divided Afghanistan would have to be placed under the influence of its neighbouring States: South to Iran, North to Pakistan and Northwest to Central Asian States or Russia. Yet the situation would not be ideal for the reasons that the Afghans particularly the Pukhtoons will not agree to that. Would this divide suit Pakistan is another question and perhaps the most important one? Pakistan is already locked due to the on going enmity with India on eastern side. If Afghanistan gets divided the Western side would also be blocked. Given the political wisdom of Pakistani establishment such situation would sandwich Pakistan. Sea routes or silk route are not enough for our economical and social growth and we have thoroughly experienced that, yet Pakistani establishment is fixed to this idea since inception. If we want to play some meaningful role in the region and in the world, and if we want to prosper then the opening and functioning of land link between Bengal to India to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Central Asia to Europe is essential.
Hence, after the war is over Pakistan should assert on unity of Afghanistan, presence of coalition forces in Afghanistan under the command of UN, a democratic or consensus government and financial package to reconstruct the war torn country. It may sound strange to some but Pakistan should not worry about the behaviour of future government in Afghanistan. If it represents all the segments of Afghan society, Pakistan should strongly support it. This is perhaps the only way to reach Europe through land route; and that means much in terms of trade and transfer of technology for us. There is no doubt that Pakistan can avoid Indian factor in Afghanistan by not opening its land route on the Indians but that would be disastrous because it would amount to sticking to fifty year old policies that have ruined us. Here, it must be noted that under the evolving environment whichever government is formed in Afghanistan would have to be friendly to CARs, Russia, China, Iran and India. So, it would be better to take advantage of the conflict-less situation, rather than feeling annoyed about it.
Yet if we remained chained to our fatal perceptions then no one can stop the divide, and Pakistan would be the biggest and perhaps the only loser. India would get connected, at a slightly higher economic cost, through a sea plus land route via Gulf and the part of Afghanistan that would come under Iranian influence. In this regard we must also keep in mind that an agreement on this subject already exists between Iran, Russia and India.
In the ongoing situation—which seems to many analysts result-less, though it is not—to achieve our objectives and that too in a shorter length of time more is to be done. Why to leave every thing on the Americans? Pakistan has so far played its card well, but now a stage has arrived where planned Pakistani involvement is required. This would not only save many innocent lives but, it would also give more weight to Pakistan, and that would increase our say in whatever has to happen to Afghanistan after the war is over. And if the divide is the desire of the coalition forces, that too can be effectively checked. Now when we are on American side that means we already are against their opponents, so, it won’t matter what kind of support we are rendering. Time has come to stand also by our own side and that would be achieved only through more participation in war against terrorism. To have that we should stand by the coalition forces right in Afghanistan. The sooner it is done the better it would be.
The ‘why” of terrorism—I: Zaheer Bhatti
Any credible news or analysis emanates from a source, and in the event of claims, needs to be either verified or versions of various sides duly stated. Pakistan has acted in total disregard to the established diplomatic practice, by denying the Afghan Ambassador in Pakistan, whose Nation is a party to the conflict in the region, the right to speak to the press and give his side of the story and daily account of the war imposed on the Afghan people, alleging that they were violating the third country rule. Pakistan government is yet to answer Mulla Zaeef’s retort as to why then, the American consulate in Peshawar by the same analogy, was allowed to publish bulletins in Pushto language with venomous material against Afghanistan? On top of it, Afghanistan being asked to close its consulate in Karachi, is not only unfortunate, but a step which has no parallel in diplomatic history, where a recognized country is asked to close shop without giving any cogent reason. One wonders if we were not trying to be more loyal than the king in doing so, when the U.S saw value in the continuation of the window?
So much more has been revealed on the sidelines of this pre-meditated campaign, projected initially as an allied effort, but turning out to be essentially an American game in which many parties were looking to harvest the spoils. Britain’s Tony Blair is coming under criticism for toeing what was out and out, an American show, be it food air-drops, humanitarian assistance or the military campaign itself, all wrapped in American flags.
The Americans who invented anthrax, during the Iran-Iraq conflict, are tasting a bit of their own medicine themselves, but instead of learning any lessons, are hell bent on finding an excuse to use nuclear war-heads in Afghanistan, disillusioned by their slow advance. Mazar-i-Sharif reported fallen to the American backed Northern Alliance, is bound to be hit back on the pattern of the past, for all one knows it may be a tactical withdrawal by the Taliban.
India, from the very start, has been vying its chances to have the struggle in Kashmir, dubbed as a Pakistan abetted terrorist act to confuse the indigenous struggle and find an excuse to attack the liberated part in pursuit of the perceived terrorists. Vajpayee’s glum face at his appearance with Bush in Washington yesterday, did not appear to promise much either, over the Indian PM’s bid to seek entry into the six plus two, for a role in post-Taliban Afghanistan.
The tone and tenor of the western media over senseless and deliberate bombing of Afghanistan, clearly points to the frustration of America and Britain, who had envisioned quick successes in the campaign, while disapproval by literally all nations around the globe including the American public, gains momentum with every passing day. It is also paradoxical, that besides the Pakistan government going over board in its support, the global Peace Prize winning body of the United Nations, and its Secretary General Kofi Annan, should have stamped their blind-folded approval for devastating Iraq over a decade ago, and now Afghanistan without analyzing why the act of September 11 was committed and by whom?
In this campaign of terror against terrorism, the victims of the persecution, are innocent men women and children made of the same material of flesh blood and bones as the Western or European human being, and where the perceived offender continues to be a supposition, without any credible evidence against them. Their only fault appears to be that whether Osama, his Al Qaeda or the Taliban, they all happen to be Muslims. They are called extremists, fanatics and what not. I often ponder when did any Muslim ever question the credentials of the Christians, whether Roman Catholic or Protestants or Jews or Hindus, Sikhs, Budhists or for that matter anyone professing any faith? Why is then the West in particular, so obsessed about what brand of Islam is practiced by the Muslims?
Duplicity and partisan performance of the U.S and the United Nations, is vividly borne out by the terrorizing campaign being replicated by America’s close allies i.e. Israel in Palestine and the Indians in Kashmir, but there is not a ripple of concern or action barring some lip service, the world body of the UN as usual, continuing to rubber stamp US plans elsewhere, furthering its interests and global agenda. There is only selective implementation of UN and Security Council resolutions at the behest of the U.S, and never any semblance of condemnation by the world body, of countless barbaric acts of terrorism by America itself, whose intelligence outfit the CIA, has the singular distinction of having by an act of parliament, the license to kill world leaders and topple legitimate governments. The UN is ostensibly crafted on the principle of sovereignty of nations, and non-interference in their internal matters, but fails to act judiciously when it comes to the United States.
Pakistan might have scored initial points with America over India, but one fears that the Indians might use the bogey to have us committed beyond any room to retract. One can foresee next, the Indians committing their ground forces in aid of the coalition. Would Pakistan be in a position to do the same? If it does not, how then would it pre-empt Indian influence on the future complexion of the Government in Afghanistan? The Pakistani President, already conscious of the fall-out on the sensitive position taken by him, is raising concern over continuation of the military campaign during the Muslim holy month of Ramazan; a campaign which would enhance rather than eradicate the potential of increased terrorism in retaliation.
Even before the launching of this strike against Afghanistan, some of the NATO allies had cautioned against finding a military solution, but one reckons that the self-styled leader of the unipolar world riding its air of arrogance, paid no attention and plunged into what could prove to be, his waterloo. Already, in around a month long savage bombardment picking more on civilians than military targets, the American and British sorties are feeling the strain of what their news media have termed, as unusual resistance by the Afghans. But not withstanding the resilience of the fabled Pushtoons of the Khyber, the Americans need to pause and think, what they would gain from this bottomless campaign against what they have chosen to call terrorism. They have in the past, used their military might against Iraq, Sudan, Libya and Iran with impunity and without a genuine cause that would meet the eye, but there is always a time to reflect and alter course, if the objective is not achieved. There is little doubt that the U.S., with its policies, has gathered more flak than admiration worldwide and needs to bolster its tarnished image.
One may not question the desire of United States to rule the world, but aspiration ought to be matched with credible evidence of a performance which reflects even-handedness, justice and fair-play. That precisely is not happening, and the free world is getting increasingly disenchanted, disillusioned and disappointed, even hateful and enraged, over the big bully’s “care too hoots” attitude for the discriminated and subjugated people all over the world.
The world is protesting and condemning the American military campaign, but Rumsfeld and his Generals, as well as the American Press Corps continue with their briefings recounting successes, against what they call specified targets, blissfully unconcerned with what the rest of humanity thinks about their heartless acts of bravado.
It is in this hour of reckoning, extremely important for the US to introspect, as to why the September 11, happenings occurred in the first place. Unless America is willing to find a dispassionate answer to the “why” of it all, it will continue to tread the wrongful path it has chosen for itself. It has unnecessarily exposed itself and it military might to a senseless war, in which the unmatched adversary has nothing to loose, and the Americans, their hyped pride at stake.
My opinion as a Pakistani analyst could be taken as biased, but it would be relevant here to quote from an article by one David Duke, an American, who is National President of European unity and Rights Organization (EURO), written on 17th September 2001, barely a week after the assault on the World Trade Center. The article titled ‘The real evil spirit behind the global turmoil’ says, “ the bad news is that no matter how many billions of dollars, the government spends or how many bombs it drops, it is impossible to completely protect ourselves from these grave dangers. In fact, the more bomb dropping and devastation we do, the more likely, a future terrorist response.” He goes on to say,”unless we understand the ‘why’ of these terrorist acts and the motivation behind them, we cannot prevent a repeat of such happenings in the future.”
The American mass media, have provided us in living color, gory details of the bloody attack, but the Zionist dominated media have conveniently avoided giving an understandable reason, why the attack took place. The terrorists no doubt committed an indescribably horrible and ruthless act against the American people, but they who sacrificed their lives for a cause, cannot be described as cowards, as stated by Bush and Blair. The ultimate cause if this terrorism stems directly from the American involvement in, and support for the criminal behaviour of Israel.
The Palestinians and many Arab allies (of the US) have been the target of over half a century of unrelenting Israeli terrorism since 1940 when the Jews took over Palestine, drove out 700.000 people from their homes, cut apart the bellies of pregnant women, and publicized it widely to scare away the rest of them, to flee.
Who to blame for terrorism—I: Mahmood Mamdani
Ever since Sept. 11, there has been a growing media interest in Islam. What is the link, many seem to ask, between Islam and terrorism?
The Spectator, a British weekly, carried a lead article a few weeks ago arguing that the link was not with all of Islam, but with a very literal interpretation of it.
This version, Wahhabi Islam, it warned, was dominant in Saudi Arabia, from where it had been exported both to Afghanistan and the United States. This argument was echoed widely in many circles, more recently in the New York Times.
This article is borne of dissatisfaction with the new wisdom that we must tell apart Good Muslim from Bad Muslim.
Is our world really divided into two, so that one part makes culture and the other is a prisoner of culture? Does culture stand for creativity in one part of the world but in the other part, it stands for habit, for some kind of instinctive activity, whose rules are inscribed in early founding texts, usually religious?
When I read of Islam in the papers these days, I feel I am reading of people who are said not to make culture, except at the beginning of creation, as some extraordinary, prophetic, act. After that, it seems they just conform to culture. Their culture seems to have no history, no politics, and no debates. It seems just to have petrified into a lifeless custom.
We are now told to give serious attention to culture. It is said that culture is now a matter of life and death. But is it really true that people’s public behaviour, specifically their political behaviour, can be read from their religion?
How, one may ask, does the literal reading of religious texts translate into hijacking, murder, and terrorism? Some may object that I am presenting a caricature of what we read in the press. After all, is there not less and less talk of the clash of civilisations, and more and more talk of the clash inside civilisations? Is that not the point of the articles I referred to earlier?
We now are told to distinguish between good Muslims and bad Muslims, not between good and bad persons, nor between criminals and civic citizens, who both happen to be Muslim.
We are told that there is a fault line running through Islam, a line that divides moderate Islam, called genuine Islam, and extremist political Islam. The terrorists of Sept. 11, we are told, did not just hijack planes; it is said that they also hijacked Islam, meaning genuine Islam!
Here is one version of the argument that the clash is inside — and not between — civilisations. It is my own construction, but it is not a fabrication.
Islam and Christianity have one thing in common. Both share a deeply messianic orientation. Each has a conviction that it possesses the truth. Both have a sense of mission to civilise the world. Think, for example, of the Arabic word al-Jahaliya, which I have always known to mean the domain of ignorance.
This conviction is so deep-seated that it is even found in its secular version, as in the old colonial notion of “a civilising mission,” or in its more racialised version, “the White Man’s Burden.” Or simply, in the 19th century American conviction of a “manifest destiny.”
But even if you should claim to know what is good for humanity, how do you proceed? By persuasion or force? The first alternative gives you reason and evangelism; the second gives you the Crusades.
Take Islam and the notion of Jihad, which roughly translated means struggle. A student of mine gave me a series of articles written by the Pakistani academic and journalist, Iqbal Ahmed, in the Karachi-based newspaper, Dawn.
In one of these articles, Iqbal distinguished between two broad traditions in the understanding of Jihad. The first, called “little Jihad,” thinks of Jihad as a struggle against external enemies of Islam. It is an Islamic version of the Christian notion of “just war”. The second, called “big Jihad,” thinks of Jihad as more of a spiritual struggle, against the self in a contaminated world.
All of this is true, but I don’t think it explains terrorism. Could it be true that an orthodox Muslim is a potential terrorist? Or, the same thing, that an Orthodox Jew is a potential terrorist and only a Reformed Jew is capable of being tolerant of those who do not share his convictions?
How do you make sense of politics that consciously wears the mantle of religion? Take, as example, the politics of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, both of whom claim to be waging a Jihad, a just war against the enemies of Islam. How do we make sense of this?
I want to suggest that we turn the cultural theory of politics on its head. Rather than see this politics as the outcome of an archaic culture, I suggest we see neither the culture nor the politics as archaic, but both as very contemporary outcomes of equally contemporary conditions, relations and conflicts.
I suggest we place cultural debates in historical and political contexts. Terrorism is not a cultural residue in modern politics. Rather, terrorism is a modern construction. Even when it tries to harness one or another aspect of tradition and culture, it puts this at the service of a modern project.
Iqbal Ahmed writes of a television image from 1985, of Ronald Reagan meeting a group of turbaned men, all Afghani, all leaders of the Mujahedeen.
After the meeting, Reagan brought them out onto the White House lawn, and introduced them to the media in these words: “These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s Founding Fathers.”
This was the moment when official America tried to harness one version of Islam in a struggle against the Soviet Union. Before exploring the politics of it, let me clarify the historical moment. That year, 1975, was the year of American defeat in Indochina. It was also the year the Portuguese empire collapsed in Africa. It was the year the centre of gravity of the Cold War shifted from Southeast Asia to Southern Africa.
The question was who would pick up the pieces of the Portuguese empire; the US or the Soviet Union? As the centre of gravity of the Cold War shifted, there was also a shift in US strategy. The Nixon Doctrine had been forged toward the closing years of the Vietnam War but could not be implemented at that late stage — the doctrine that “Asian boys must fight Asian wars” — was really put into practice in Southern Africa.
In practice, it translated into a US decision to harness, or even to cultivate, terrorism in the struggle against regimes it considered pro-Soviet.
In Southern Africa, the immediate result was a partnership between the US and apartheid South Africa. Reagan termed this new partnership “constructive engagement.”
South Africa became both conduit and partner of the US in the hot war against those governments in the region considered pro-Soviet. This partnership bolstered a number of terrorist movements: Renamo in Mozambique, and Unita in Angola. Their terrorism was of a type Africa had never seen before. These terrorist movements specifically targeted civilians. It sought specifically to kill and maim civilians, but not all of them. Always, the idea was to leave a few to go and tell the story, to spread fear. The object of spreading fear was to paralyse government. |
