Dr. Shireen Mazari (The News: Every Wednesday)
 

[b][size=4][b]India's insatiable appetite[/b]
[/size]Shireen M Mazari[/b]

[b]When India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh spoke at the Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA) on November 11, his reference to "failed states" emerging in the region triggered a terrible sense of deja vu. It was once again a reminder of India's appetite for constant expansion of its national borders. After all, apart from Israel, India is the only other state to have expanded its territory through the use of force and military power since its creation. Besides the annexation of the princely states of Hyderabad and Junagarh and the occupation of Jammu and Kashmir, India took military action in Goa in 1961 followed by the incorporation of that state within the Indian Union in 1962. Then, in 1975, Sikkim was swallowed up by the Indian Union.[/b]

[b]The case of Sikkim is particularly interesting because it shows the devious manner in which the Indian state manipulated events to end the sovereignty of that tiny territory which had remained an independent Buddhist kingdom under the Namgyal Chogyal dynasty from 1642 right up to 1975. Earlier, in 1835, the king of Sikkim had been forced to give Darjeeling to the British as a 'gift' and it was at this time that Sikkim became a British protectorate. When the present state of India was created in 1947, it took over the protectorate and as such the foreign policy and national defence of Sikkim were transferred to India. But that was never enough for Indian rulers. Using Nepalese settlers in Sikkim to intrigue and plan the overthrow of the Choygal, India continued to increase its influence in this kingdom. In 1975, Mrs Gandhi annexed Sikkim in a well-planned drama. On April 8, Indian tanks and soldiers surrounded the palace and placed the Choygal under Indian surveillance. On April 10, the Sikkim Assembly unanimously resolved that "the institution of the Choygal is hereby abolished and Sikkim shall henceforth be a constituent unit of India". Then on April 14 a referendum was held, while Indian forces continued their presence, which supported the Assembly's resolution. Ten days later, the Indian parliament accepted the Sikkimese request of merger and thus India was able to make this one-time independent kingdom the 22nd state of the Indian Union. This Indian practice of moving in its forces was similar to what the Indians had tried in their occupation of Jammu and Kashmir. In the case of Sikkim, the pretext given throughout was one of instability and insecurity of a weak regime -- what would be referred to as a failed state in today's political language.[/b]

[b]So when Indian leaders talk of the "danger of a number of failed states emerging in our neighbourhood" and how this will have "far-reaching consequences for our region and our people", the neighbourhood should certainly be alarmed. After all, India has sought control over all the smaller states within its neighbourhood, one way or another.[/b]
[b]At present, it is experiencing problems not only with Nepal but also with Bangladesh. Despite the fact that Maoist rebels use sanctuaries across the border in India, New Delhi refuses to seal this border because it has never regarded it as a proper international boundary. Instead, its forces have gone across at will to arrest people on the Nepalese side. Indian political intervention in Nepal is well known and efforts to control Nepalese foreign policy are also documented. For instance, how can anyone forget the stoppage of Nepal's transit rights as a landlocked state when it chose to purchase a few anti-aircraft guns (a purely defensive weapon system) from China? Given the political use India has made of this situation, Afghanistan should be grateful that it has uninterrupted transit rights across Pakistan. Because Nepal has persisted with displaying a sense of independence as behoves a sovereign state that was never colonised, India has become increasingly bellicose towards the Himalayan kingdom. The remarks made by Singh at the IDSA, therefore, contain a veiled threat that should not be ignored. Nor did the threat only target Nepal, given the reference to refugees and destabilisation of India's border areas. This was a clear reference to Bangladesh and its ongoing conflict with India on the issue of refugees and outstanding border demarcations.[/b]
[b]Even more critically, Singh's statement is extremely dangerous for the neighbourhood because the language is similar to that of the US pre-emptive doctrine and regime-change notions. As we know, India had already laid claim to this doctrine so it would not be fanciful to assume that India, with US blessings, now seeks greater control over the smaller states in its neighbourhood. This does not mean that it will necessarily use overt military force to implement its agenda.[/b]
[b]History should never be forgotten and we need to recall how India gained control over Bhutan's external affairs. Bounded on three sides by India, Bhutan has always been a key part of India's strategic planning. As early as 1949, India signed a Treaty of Friendship with Bhutan, which remains in force in perpetuity. This Treaty, comprising ten articles, assures Bhutan of India's "non-interference" in its internal affairs in return for Bhutan agreeing "to be guided by the advice of the Government of India in regard to its external relations" (Article 2).[/b]
[b]As India's military might has increased and its strategic partnership with the US has proceeded by leaps and bounds, it is now seeing itself in a position to be more forceful and assertive with states like Nepal and Bangladesh. Eventually, it can also increase belligerency towards Pakistan. After all, despite the ongoing peace process, it continues to remain intransigent over conflictual issues. Here, it is not just Kashmir but also the water issue. We have now seen how India kept us uselessly involved in talks that led nowhere on the Kishanganga project and that is why we are now compelled to seek the international arbitration allowed for under the Indus Waters Treaty. Nor should we assume that the violence meted out to our diplomatic staff and their children is simply an odd incident -- even though our own sudden silence on the beating up of our High Commission staffer's child is strange and surely should not be the price we have to pay for sustaining positive atmospherics for the dialogue process.[/b]

[b]Meanwhile, it would seem that India's insatiable appetite to gain ever more control over its neighbourhood seems to be overwhelming us all. That is why Afghanistan is in Saarc and China is not. After all, becoming a member of Saarc would have allowed China freer access to trade in this region given the push for SAFTA, and that would pose a threat to Indian goods. With Afghanistan as a Saarc member, how will we now prevent Indian access across the land route to Afghanistan under SAFTA? India talks of no redrawing of borders but it has an endless hunger for expanding its own national frontiers, directly or indirectly. Manmohan Singh has shown us the new face of this voracious appetite. We will have only ourselves to blame if we ignore this warning.[/b]


[b]The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad[/b]
[b]Email: [email="smnews80@hotmail.com"]smnews80@hotmail.com[/email][/b]
[b]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/b]

[b][size=4][b]The India factor[/b][/size]
While we as Pakistanis should be grateful for all international aid, we must not allow anyone to make political capital out of our human tragedy
Shireen M Mazari
At this time of devastation and tragedy the nation has shown a remarkable spirit of giving and a tremendous sense of gratitude to the international community for providing an ever increasing amount of aid. After all, whatever aid is extended by the international community needs to be appreciated as it is voluntary and reflects a basic humanity that overrides politics and conflicts. In that context, Pakistan has also appreciated the aid sent across by India. Realising the massive scale of the disaster, Pakistan has welcomed aid and assistance from wherever it has been offered.

However, it is unfortunate that India has not missed the opportunity to try and score political points even at this time of immense tragedy that has also impacted the territory of Kashmir occupied by the Indian state. It is even more pitiful that some in Pakistan have fallen prey to this Indian game and have been haranguing the state of Pakistan for refusing to accept Indian military personnel and helicopters for rescue operations in AJK.

Certain points need to be clarified from the outset. To begin with, the Indian offer of military helicopters with their military crews was made only once when the earthquake struck and this seemed to have been enough to rally round the Indophiles in this country. But they forgot that the quake had also struck Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK). If the Indians had an excess capacity of helicopters, why were Kashmiris in IOK lamenting the lack of response from the Indian state and civil society? Given that aid had not reached the remote quake-stricken areas in IOK even after three days of the disaster, why were the available copters not being deployed in that region by the Indian state? Five days after the quake, survivors in areas such as Salamabad, Gundishot and Gawalan had yet to see the face of any assistance -- either from civil society or the Indian government. Reuters quoted farmers like Syed Mukhtar Hussein expressing anger that "the government of India is sending relief to Pakistan and they are not helping us, who they claim are their people." Yasin Malik of the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front declared that the disaster "was a golden opportunity for the government of India to show a human face but the government missed the opportunity."

Nor is the Kashmiri anger in the occupied territory directed only at the Indian government. A Reuters report, dated October 14, cites Noor Ahmed Baba, head of the Political Science Department at Kashmir University, Srinagar, complaining: "When the tsunami happened, Kashmiris donated money and were involved in the aid effort. But this time we have not seen Indian civil society moving to help Kashmir." The slow response of the Indian state and society in aiding the stricken in IOK drew a sharp comment from Mir Waiz Umar Farooq during a special prayer at Srinagar's Jamia Masjid on Tuesday, October 11. Contrasting the response of Indian civil society to the Gujarat earthquake, he lamented: "It is sad that people have not responded to this great tragedy. This was not expected. When Latur and Bhuj were ravaged, big industrialists stepped forward to help. But no one seems to be coming to our aid." (The Hindu, October 13.)

The Indian state's slow response in terms of aid and assistance to the Kashmiris living under its occupation has also resulted in a public litigation filed in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in which the petitioners have also alleged that the injured were being charged an ambulance fee of between Rs 300 and Rs 1,500 for shifting them to Srinagar hospitals, adding that the government had made no attempt to send aid beyond Tangdhar. So where is the excess capacity of the Indian military in terms of the helicopters that they apparently want to sent to AJK? Worse still, a week after the quake, according to Reuters, UNICEF was still waiting for permission to enter IOK and set up its relief efforts -- unlike in AJK where it is in the forefront of relief work.

Clearly the Indian 'offer' of helicopters was more of a point-scoring move, given its own situation in Occupied Kashmir. But there was a more devious purpose as well, in case Pakistan had succumbed to the Indian game plan. Any Indian military personnel given access to AJK would not only have seen the lay of the land but also the military situation relating to the Pakistan Army -- including the damage in lives and material.

In contrast, the Indian media has been given access to AJK with NDTV moving in almost immediately. Would India allow similar access in IOK to Pakistani media teams? So far that has not happened, but if UNICEF is finding it hard to get into IOK with relief, certain rational conclusions can be drawn regarding Pakistan's media presence.

Indian intent regarding the extent it is prepared to go to in aiding relief efforts can be assessed from the Indian conditional permission to allow Pakistani copters to fly in the one-kilometre-wide "peacetime no-fly zone" over the LOC. Given how the Indians feel it quite proper for us to allow their military presence in AJK, why has the Indian government been so niggardly in granting permission to Pakistan to fly over this zone only on a case-by-case basis? What possible threat would India have faced if it had given this permission unconditionally, so that time would not be wasted in having the DGMO on the Pakistani side of the LOC first contacting his Indian counterpart every time a Pakistani rescue helicopter had to enter this zone? So it is time the Indophiles in Pakistan woke to the reality of the Indian state's mindset.

Unfortunately, the India factor is impacting more than just the helicopter debate. The strong Indian influence over the BBC is evident not only in the time given to discussion on the helicopter issue, but also in the fact that while reports on the quake from India are being handled by an Indian BBC stringer, for reports from AJK and Pakistan the Pakistani representative of the BBC was obviously seen as suspect and so we have had BBC reporters descend on us from London itself. As a result the Pakistani face of the BBC is barely visible on the screen.

But the real absurdity is the BBC Urdu Service on the radio. Seemingly full of Indian-origin interviewers, they have been conducting pre-interview interviews to ascertain who can be critical enough of the Pakistani state so that his/her voice can be broadcast. I witnessed one such event where in the pre-interview interview the interviewer desperately tried to make a doctor declare that the Pakistani state had failed and the hospitals were neglecting the injured and so on. When that did not work the interview was simply cut off! So much for the BBC's credibility. So while we as Pakistanis must be grateful for all international aid, including that from our neighbours, we must not allow anyone to make political capital out of our human tragedy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[size=4][b]Have we come to this?[/b][/size]
Shireen M Mazari

The desecration of the Holy Qur'aan in Guantanamo Bay simply to cause psychological torment to the incarcerated Muslims, with no thought to the sensitivity of innocent Muslims across the globe, certainly makes it clear how the US administration views Muslims. Add to this The Washington Times' portrayal of Pakistan as a pet dog obeying the commands of the US, in the wake of the arrest by Pakistan of al-Qaeda's Abu Farraj Al Libbi, clearly reflects the abuse the US media feels it can dish out to Pakistan at will. The cartoonist's explanation is absolute drivel and he should recall the British reaction to George Michael's video, "Wag The Dog". Incidentally, on such a blatant abuse of Pakistan, why was it left to the Deputy Chief of Mission to take up the issue at the level of our embassy in Washington? Surely our ambassador should have made the public protest. Despite this continuous insult of Pakistan and Islam, we continue to live under the illusion that we are being seen as a partner in the war on terrorism!

In fact, there seems to be a growing disconnect between our national sovereignty and developments on the ground. As stated in an earlier column we now have foreign personnel actually examining our passports within our own territory - in our departure lounges. No other state would accept this micro level usurpation of sovereignty-- certainly not a state that is a major regional player and a nuclear power. It is no wonder then that we have had the US and British ambassadors pontificating on our domestic issues ad nauseum. In fact, we have the EU and the US (with a few exceptions) evolving a highly intrusive and dialectical relationship with Pakistan. They want us to have democracy but cannot stomach the results of the electoral process. Then they want to alter our social norms and educational system so that eventually we shed our Islamic identity - something that seems rather remote and a trifle absurd also.

While the US focuses on external strategic cooperation with India, with Pakistan the focus is primarily on seeking to shape internal societal dynamics. But we have continued to accommodate and go more than the extra mile in the open-ended war against terror. This, despite the abuse of Muslims and Islam in Guantanamo Bay and the many attacks against Pakistanis in the US itself - of which little ever comes out in the US media. And one cannot forget the anti-Islam tirades from within the US Administration by such representatives as General Boykin!

What has been the net result or our extensive cooperation with the US and its allies? We have had our nuclear programme come under scrutiny while the Iran-India nuclear cooperation has remained beyond the pale of examination, and the European links in the A.Q. Khan network have been kept out of the media spotlight. And now there are members of the US Congress who are seeking to link the supply of US weapons to Pakistan with a US Presidential certification that Pakistan has provided unhindered access to Dr. Khan. So while we may read news reports of new weapon systems that the Pentagon is expecting to sell to Pakistan, all these sales will have to get Congressional approval! And that is not going to be smooth sailing for Pakistan.

The worse aspect of our cooperation has been the domestic access given to foreign governments and NGOs, both at the micro and macro levels. It is not just the man at the departure lounge, but the intrusive NGOs commenting on developments within Pakistan with a heavily biased agenda. Take the case of the International Crisis Group and its heavily biased reports on Pakistan. Interestingly enough, the ICG had to leave India, where it was working on Kashmir, because of "safety" reasons. So while Pakistan allows the ICG to continue functioning and producing its own agenda-ridden reports, there is now no ICG office in India. Strange how no one at the ICG headquarters in Brussels has made a noise on this.

With our increasingly accommodating approach to all abuse, it is no wonder, then, that even US film stars, feel a compulsion to hold forth on aspects of our policies. Notwithstanding Ms Angelina Jolie's very attractive personality and dedication to the cause of refugees, we had to suffer her political statement on the relocation of refugees. She declared, while in our country, her opposition to our policy of seeking a return of Afghan refugees back to their country and setting them up in camps in Afghanistan instead of their continuing presence in Pakistan. The similarity between her views and US views on the subject expressed soon after the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan must surely be a coincidence.

Pakistan has done more than its share of accommodating Afghan refugees, including allowing them full access to the country - in contrast to most states that keep refugees in camps. But why we should accept them as part of our civil society remains unclear, especially when thousands of stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh have yet to be accommodated. So while we appreciate Ms Jolie's work on behalf of Afghan refugees, her blundering into a sensitive political issue, is unacceptable. Incidentally, with the billions earmarked by the international community for the reconstruction of Afghanistan, the return of the refugees either to their homes or to camps within Afghanistan should be part of that reconstruction process. If the process itself is faulty, why should Pakistan have to continue paying the price - especially when aid for these refugees within Pakistan has been dwindling over the years? As it is, the continuing presence of these refugees is a growing security risk for Pakistan because they can provide space for the al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants.

There really is a strange slide down a slippery path in terms of our national identity and sovereignty. This is apparent in meetings visiting Indian delegations have with Pakistani elites - both official and at the level of civil society. Some Pakistanis now seem to be hell bent on informing Indians how we are all the same! Well, in one sense I suppose we are the same as all humankind. But many of us do relate to the reality of a Pakistani identity which is why the doling of our nationality to any foreigner who happens to state his love for the country is also not very comforting. If I were to declare my love for a European or Asian state, would I automatically receive an offer of nationality from that country?

Where are we headed and how far will we go in compromising our sovereignty seems unclear, but we have reached a low point when we are seen as pet dogs by our supposed ally's media and American movie stars state their opposition to our policies while in our country. Apart from the strong Foreign Office protest, where are the voices that normally harangue on our foreign policy? Strangely silent. So this is what we have come to now.

The writer is a Director General of the Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad
Email: [email="smnews80@hotmail.com"]smnews80@hotmail.com[/email]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[size=4][b]The flaw in Pak-US ties [/b][/size]

by Shireen M. Mazari
US policy towards Pakistan is fast bordering on the absurd - the realities of power notwithstanding. On the one hand, the US relationship with Pakistan has degenerated into a one-way traffic of punitive measures, which are being dished out almost on a daily basis - or so it would seem, and here the perception is as important as the reality on the ground! On the days that there is no negative action against Pakistan by the US Administration, there will be news of some US-based study or the other, which condemns Pakistan for all manner of ills. The latest such report has obviously run out of individual ailments and has simply declared that Pakistan has the worst of everything.
On the other hand, a state which has been condemned as being the worst of the worst (by no less an agency than the CIA - and we know what the CIA does to such states! Remember Allende's Chile many decades earlier?), is also being asked, again on almost a daily basis, to do this or that US bidding. If it is not a demand to disown the Taliban and hand over Osama, it is direct intervention in the country's internal affairs - be it in relation to the religious parties or the nuclear programme (funny how the Indian nuclear programme seems to have been missed entirely by the same agitationers of the US) or even the economy. The latest demand to come down has been for Pakistan to sign the children's treaty (Hague Convention on Children) and the accompanying accusation that Pakistani parents were "abducting" their US nationality holder children. At the same time, the US government failed to cite any such case. Of course, the US would never think that US nationals might also be guilty of "abducting" children born to a mixed marriage between a Pakistani and an American. Yet such cases abound where American mothers have kept their children in the US forcibly away from their Pakistani fathers. European mothers do the same. There is an inherent - though blatantly false - assumption that a child would prefer the US/European way of life. This is as blatant a case of racism - almost bordering on the racial superiority policies of the Nazis.
In any event, why should Pakistan listen to the US demands? Because they are powerful? That may be the case, but since Pakistan is already the most sanctioned-against state - in terms of US-sanctions at least, although in terms of UN-sanctions other Islamic states like Iraq would win by a huge margin - there is not much more left for the US to do in punitive terms. Of course, they could send the marines/special services in directly - already some press reports are suggesting that 150 of them are here around the Tarbela area - but they would find it difficult to make much headway. Grenada was many continents away! As for getting tough economically through the IMF and the World Bank - that would go against their own economic interests. Also, they are using the IMF quite effectively to destroy our agricultural sector so that we are forced to take in the West's agricultural surplus. So there is not much more damage the US can do to Pakistan that is not already underway, especially with the UN monitors and the fallout that may result.

However, there is a great irony surrounding the latest request from the US for Pakistan to sign the Hague Convention on Children. This particular Convention has 51 states party to it but most of these, barring about five, are white, Western states. Amongst the many US allies in the south, India and Saudi Arabia are not party to it but one has seen no demand from the US go to these states! But the irony is that there is also the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is the most universally accepted treaty in human history. There are only two states that have not become party to it: Somalia and the United States of America. And there is more to this American absurdity: Presently, at the UN in New York, the UN member states are trying to negotiate and prepare a Final Document for the upcoming UN Special Session on Children and the US is singularly insisting that this document should have no mention of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child! Can anything be more tragically absurd?

While Pakistan cannot ignore the realities of power, there is nothing to prevent it from making public the contradictions and absurdities of the major powers in terms of prevailing international norms and treaties. After all, even the power flexing states seek shelter in these norms!
This pressure on Pakistan to concede on so many fronts has been aggravated from within the country by those who would have Pakistan make all the concessional moves - without examining whether there are any benefits from such compromises. For instance, there are now moves within Pakistan's elite to push for Pakistan making concessions to India on trade, etc at the Musharraf-Vajpayee Summit in New York. Why should Pakistan do so in the face of increasing Indian bellicosity and hardening of the Indian position not only on Kashmir but also in general towards Pakistan. Throughout the post-Agra period, Pakistan maintained a silent posture in the face of India's aggressive posturing. But there has been no response in kind from India and even leading up to the Summit, India has simply upped the belligerent ante. So on what basis should Pakistan concede to the Indian stance of not focusing on Kashmir? Concessions have to be reciprocal, so why do we always demand that Pakistan always make the first moves?

This is not to say that Pakistan must adopt a rigid posturing in negotiations and dialogue. Nor has Pakistan done so. Even at Agra, the Pakistani side adopted a very flexible, holistic approach to the Pakistan-India relationship and even Kashmir. In the case of the latter, Pakistan was prepared to move beyond the UN resolutions and wanted to mutually discard positions on Kashmir totally unacceptable to either side - so that dialogue could begin on a flexible note. As for the overall Pakistan-India relationship, Pakistan maintained that dialogue could be conducted on other issues simultaneously, but that final progress on other issue was directly linked to some progress on Kashmir. This is a far more pragmatic approach than the segmented Indian approach, which seeks to discuss only one or two issues from the "basket" of issues earlier agreed to for the comprehensive bilateral dialogue. It is this approach Pakistan should maintain in New York and let the Indians now respond in kind in terms of flexibility and concessions - the latter should be substantive not simply for scoring media points as happened prior to Agra.
All in all, it is time that we in Pakistan stopped being overwhelmed by the global "realities of power" on issues such as sanctions, peacekeeping, international treaties and so on. Yes, there are these realities but there are also international norms, a UN Charter that has not been formally discarded, and very real limitations to the exercise of these "realities" of power. We also need to make our own people and the power flexers realize the contradictions and absurdities of the latter laying claims to international morality and norms. Naked power plays, at the very least, must be exposed for what they are.
At some point, even the most loyal of allies of the powerful will reach the end of their tether. This is already beginning to happen in the Middle East where the US is tolerating all manner of violence and abuse being unleashed by Israel on to the Palestinians. This has driven even the most cautious of states like Saudi Arabia not only to condemn US policy but also to show their disapproval in more substantive terms with the Saudi Chief of Staff General Salah al-Muhaya cancelling his trip to Washington DC. Given the intimate military relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia as well as a high level of military dependency of the Saudis on the US, this move is of great significance. The manner in which the US is choosing to go for unabashed power plays in this region may well lead to its increasing isolation. An isolated power will find its options undermined so that it may only have the option of having to use naked power more and more - and that, in today's interdependent world, will achieve less and less in real terms.[/b]

A Column by Dr Mazari
 

[B]A law unto themselves[/B]


[B]Shireen M Mazari[/B]


The exhilarating victory of the Pakistan cricket team against the much-touted English side was yet another reminder that, given an opportunity, this nation is second to none. As I have believed and stated in these columns earlier, our cricketers always win in spite of bureaucratic machinations and the cricketing officialdom, which seems to be a law unto itself and unaccountable for any actions and decisions. Nowhere was this more clearly reflected than in the absence of the PCB chief on the day our team won against all odds in Lahore. Instead of being there at this critical juncture for the team, he saw fit to whiz off to India to talk to the new BCCI led by Sharad Pawar. Could his meeting in India not have waited for another day? Had he and the PCB shown such speed to take up the issue of Inzamam's wrongful 'dismissal', Bell's cheating in claiming a catch that wasn't, or Pietersen threatening Afridi with the bat, Shahriyar Khan may have redeemed some credibility for himself and the board. But that has not happened to date. Worse still, the question arises whether Shahriyar, while in India, unilaterally took the decision to give in to Indian demands for postponing the Asia Cup which Pakistan is to host? Was it in our interest to do so?
Clearly, the new PCB set-up, comprising foreign office retirees (the Shahriyar-Zaidi combine), has little empathy for our players and more 'diplomatic' sensitivities for the Indians. That is why the Pakistani team had to relish its victory without the congratulatory presence of Mr Shahriyar. Surely, the representatives of the people in their parliamentary committees need to the find out why he had to absent himself from the day of victory. That is if the PCB chief, known for his arrogance towards his fellow countrymen, will deign to come before such a committee -- after all, his past record is not very encouraging on this count. Nor are the PCB chief and his minions alone in feeling they are accountable to no one. The PTF's antics have undermined many rising but poor tennis playing youth to accommodate favourites, but that is a story in itself.
There is a growing trend in this country for all manner of organisations and bodies to feel they cannot be held accountable to anyone. Despite efforts by parliamentary committees, bodies like the CDA by and large continue to carry out activities regardless of their propriety and legality. Press revelations simply pass off with a shrug while coming before committees is seen as a transitory discomfiture. As a CDA official lamented when questioned on the legal position relating to certain road expansions, such legalities "will only delay the work". The assumption that nothing could truly stop them from doing what they intended, smacked of arrogance and a cavalier attitude towards serious public concerns and the laws of the land.
But what of the bureaucrat who actually retains his sensitivities to the plight of the nation and its limited resources, and points out the erroneous decisions taken by his political boss -- be it in the case of overpaid or illegally hired foreign consultants, or the hiring of excessive staff? These bosses also feel they are a law unto themselves and not accountable to state employees. That is why one secretary, sensitive to the nation's resources, now finds himself a pariah whom no politician will touch.
Nor is it just in the field of government and politics where we find the powerful becoming laws unto themselves. Take the case of the private schools that have mushroomed all over the country, supposedly to provide better quality education than the government. Some undoubtedly do. But the critical issue is that there is absolutely no law or supervisory mechanism for these schools. They can charge whatever fees they want, they can hire whatever quality teachers and, most crucially, they can teach whatever they want -- at least until they get to the 'O' or matriculation class levels. There are schools that are highly politicised in their overall agendas; there are schools that have overcrowded classrooms; and there are schools where there is a quick turnover of teachers -- in one case, a class is on to its fourth teacher in one subject alone, in the space of one term. Worse still, there are no minimal qualifications for subject specialists, nor are the CVs of the teachers made public to the parents. There are textbooks, published abroad, that still talk of "Indo China" and others that wrongly calculate historic periods. Many schools still do not have assemblies where children sing the national anthem, so we have a whole generation that is unfamiliar with the national anthem of this country. Yet, the Ministry of Information can make this compulsory for all schools, including private schools. What is preventing them from doing so?
Who will oversee the working of private schools? The education ministry seems unable to even oversee its own schools in terms of what is being taught there. The horrifying incident of US propaganda finding space in our textbooks in the form of a poem of praise for Bush is a sorry reflection on how textbooks are formulated here. To say it was purely accidental is even worse because it reflects an unacceptable level of ignorance on the part of the compiler of the book in question. In any case, it is unfortunate that our own English-language poets are disregarded when it comes to compilation of English poetry or English literature in general.
Coming back to the issue of some form of supervision of private schools, civil society clearly needs to develop a greater sense of civic duty. We need to form civil society groups to help the state oversee educational activities in the private sector. At the very least, we need to set minimal educational qualifications for subject teachers and assess the books and syllabi. Also, all teachers being hired should sign contracts for a minimal period so that there is some continuity in the teaching. Private schools, by and large, are offering good salaries so there is no reason why they cannot implement minimal standards of teaching. The facilities offered by private schools also need to be looked into. In the long term, there is also a need to bring private -- and public-sector education at par, including in terms of examination systems and boards.
All in all, there is a need for civil society to move actively to challenge all those who feel they are laws unto themselves and thereby not accountable to anyone in the country. It is the power of civil society that will push the political elite in parliament into action and strengthen institution-building and the parliamentary form of governance. It is time we became dependent on institutions and due process rather than on individuals, no matter how charismatic. The system needs to deliver and that can only happen when there are checks and balances in all sub-systems because accountability is central to responsiveness and that is a critical factor in national well-being.

Dr. Shireen Mazari (The News: Every Wednesday)
 

[i][font=Georgia]Assalam Alaikum,[/font][/i]
[i][font=Georgia][/font][/i]
[i][font=Georgia]This space is exclusively reserved for Ms. Mazari's articles that mostly publishes in The News, every Wednesday.[/font][/i]
[i][font=Georgia][/font][/i]
[i][font=Georgia][b]Note: Any irrelevant posts will be deleted under this Thread, as we want to limit this thread for reading purposes only.[/b][/font][/i]
[i][font=Georgia][/font][/i]
[i][font=Georgia]Your cooperation will be appreciated.[/font][/i]
[i][font=Georgia][/font][/i]
[i][font=Georgia]Thanks.[/font][/i]

The Indian scheme of things
 

[B]Shireen M Mazari[/B]
It has been apparent for some time now that since the dialogue process recommenced between Pakistan and India, the latter has adopted a devious and indirect approach — the line of least resistance on the part of Pakistan, as Liddell Hart would have put it — towards seeking resolution of Kashmir on its terms. There have been multiple tacks on this approach, some overt and some covert — but all aimed at getting de facto recognition of the status quo given that de jure recognition of the same is not a possibility even in the most conducive of atmospherics that could possibly be created.
In terms of overt efforts, while Pakistan has moved to demanding demilitarisation and self-governance as interim measures, which could create a better climate in which to seek a final resolution of the Kashmir conflict, the Indians are making the self-governance issue an end in itself — even as they continue to ignore the demilitarisation CBM sought by Pakistan. The latest salvo fired in this regard came from Kuldip Nayyar, in Islamabad, when he suggested that self-governance was the only possible way to resolve the Kashmir issue! What exactly is meant by self-governance? The Indians are very clear that it refers to autonomy for the Kashmiris, but under the Indian Constitution — a situation that prevailed in Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) till 1953. Pakistan has accepted the self-governance principle for AJK, as an interim measure which is why it has never sought to bring AJK within the permanent purview of the Pakistan Constitution.
Under this framework, all that self-governance would do is at best create a more conducive political environment for the Kashmiris, but within the prevailing control structure of the Indian Constitution for Kashmiris in IOK and AJK’s linkage with Pakistan. So self-governance does not in any way deal with the issue of the Indian occupation of Kashmir and the right of self-determination of the victimised Kashmiris –- all necessary to resolve the conflict. Therefore, at best, it can be an interim measure. But again we in Pakistan need to be careful when we talk of self-governance for Kashmiris. We can ensure this in AJK but we can only express a hope that India will do the same, as an interim measure, in IOK. If we make this a formal issue to be discussed between the two states, then we are giving de facto recognition to the Indian Occupation of Kashmir — which is exactly what India would want. Hence their efforts to submerge us in this self-governance issue, with our refrain of "interim measure" soon becoming a mere whimper, lost to all but the keenest of ears — and we know the international community lacks such acute sensitivity. So we need to continuously point to the limitations of this notion even as we commend it temporarily to provide greater political breathing space to the Kashmiris.
Incidentally, Mr Nayyar’s claim that the partition of Kashmir along religious lines goes against the secular policy of New Delhi is nonsensical because India used the religious argument to take control of Hyderabad and Junagadh, so where it suits India, it is quite happy to use religion despite its claims to secularism. Indians also seem to suffer from a convenient amnesia regarding the reality of the LoC — that is, it is merely a ceasefire line and not a border, so it can be neither a "soft" nor a "hard" border.
Linked to the self-governance issue is the issue of movement of people across the LoC. Pakistan has rightfully been pushing for greater access to Kashmiris across the LoC — especially in the wake of the earthquake tragedy but if Indians and Pakistanis are going to cross the LoC this raises a series of legal issues. Will they use passports? If so, then they will be giving de facto recognition to the sovereignty of Pakistan and India over AJK and IOK. If such movement is allowed, then investors and traders will also begin coming across the LoC so we would have Indian investors in AJK — the likelihood of Pakistanis investing in IOK will not be a possibility for some time given the Indian Occupation and emergency rules. At the end of the day, such developments will also create a de facto recognition of the status quo as a solution since there will be no impetus for seeking another solution with trade and political movement being conducted across the LoC as if it were a border! The Indians know the logic of the policy of opening up of the LoC to non-Kashmiris including political elites from Pakistan and India but are we also now prepared to go along with this ploy which will inevitably bolster the status quo?
Another ominous development is the statement coming recently from New Delhi from the IOK’s Chief Minister, Ghulam Nabi Azad that international flights would start from Srinagar in two years. This would clearly give legality to India’s occupation because any foreign airliner that landed in Srinagar would be accepting the writ of the government there — that is, the Indian occupying force. Once India has notified the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) of the airports available for international traffic, through its national civil aviation authority, it will be on the ICAO list of international destinations with ICAO determining air lanes and so on. Even unused airports are in the ICAO log book, once their name has been sent there. There is a need for Pakistan to do something to counter this indirect approach of India to get legal recognition for its occupation of Jammu and Kashmir. This must be opposed in ICAO. At the very least a letter should be sent to ICAO in the form of an indemnification document to protect our legal position on Kashmir.
Worse still, if Pakistanis, and one hears some are contemplating this damaging move, were to fly from within Pakistan directly to Srinagar, we would have played the game India wants us to play. That is why foreign policy must be guided clearly from one central source and not be decentralised or privatised.
Of course, there is also talk of Muzaffarabad becoming an international airport. We should not expect the Indians to protest because this would only bolster the Indian position of seeking the status quo as a solution to the Kashmir conflict. But again our position will certainly be compromised. Unless we are extremely careful on how we move on Kashmir — and there is no reason for us to show an unseemly haste — we can be in danger of allowing state practices to gradually dilute our legal position on Kashmir to an extent where the status quo and Indian occupation of Kashmir becomes a legal reality for all intents and purposes.
Tailpiece: It was interesting to see one retired bureaucrat supporting another. As long as the bureaucratic brotherhood overrides rationality, the PCB chief can break all propriety, as he did recently in hiring, against the advice of the PCB sub committee, Mushtaq Ahmed as a bowling consultant and the wife of the Pakistani team’s physio as the new physio for the women’s team. We also seem to have a penchant for hiring wives of foreigners working in Pakistan!
The writer is director general
of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad

[B]The viceroy syndrome continues[/B]

Shireen M Mazari

As US vice president Cheney visits Islamabad, we should remember this is merely a stopover en route from Kabul for the opening of their new parliament -- for which the US, as an occupying/liberating power can rightfully claim credit. And, of course, as we have never ceased to point out on so many public fora, we are truly grateful for the help provided for the earthquake relief by the US -- as we are to so many other countries and foreign groups who perhaps do not seek so much public acknowledgement but have done more in terms of their resources than the more powerful members of the international community. Also, their work in the field does not tie up our security resources in terms of providing protection, in contrast to US and NATO forces whose relief effort, laudable as it is, involves tying up at least 7000 Pakistani soldiers simply for their protection! Just as an aside, it was highly intriguing to discover a NATO vehicle accompanied by their Pakistani safety escort, patrolling Khayaban-e-Iqbal in Islamabad, the other day. What could they have been doing? Surveillance work of some sort perhaps?
Back to the issue at hand, we also need to remember that Cheney is the main source of support for the US's use of torture, and is at the heart of the religious right lobby within the Bush Administration. His oil interests and his views on Iraq are too well-known to recount again, but we should know what he is all about. Even more important, his stopover comes in the wake of the viceroy-like pronouncements of the US ambassador in Islamabad. Despite some sort of an explanation put forward by our Foreign Office, the fact of the matter is that if he had been misquoted, his embassy would have put out a clarification. Moreover, according to many journalists who were present on the occasion, he did make the pronouncements that were reported in the press. And we know that US ambassadors in Islamabad do tend to bestow upon themselves viceregal airs and go on to pontificate on all manner of internal matters of the sovereign state of Pakistan.
Why should Crocker be perturbed about jihadi groups providing relief to their brethren in AJK? He talks of them not having renounced violence, but obviously he missed their early statements that they were now involved in a different kind of jihad -- that of providing succour to the traumatised Kashmiris. Or perhaps Crocker finds the word 'jihad' itself discomfiting just as we find the word 'crusade' hard to digest. If that is the case, he needs to deal with that issue because jihad is an integral word of our Islamic faith and hence cannot be done away with. Incidentally, given that the US is practicing covert and overt violence, including using chemical weapons and torture, in Iraq and elsewhere, it was a trifle ironic to find Mr Crocker wanting to see a renunciation of violence.
Even more galling was the Ambassador's statement on Pakistan's past experiences with democracy. Good or bad, it is not for the US to dictate what kind of democracy they would find acceptable in Pakistan. Perhaps they have got carried away with their mapping out of the political constructs in Iraq and Afghanistan! In any case, Mr Crocker did no service to the present leadership of the country by this outburst.
In fact, there have been some disturbing developments relating to the US that have converged publicly around this time. There were the revelations of secret prisons and torture by the US in the territory of its allies in Europe; there was the continuing saga of Guantanamo Bay; and, there was the announcement that the Pentagon is to invest $400 million in psy-ops targeting foreign populations and the media. We know that this includes buying air time on foreign television channels, but does it also mean slipping in texts into school textbooks? Was the poem found in a Pakistani English text book there by design -- and some uncooperative person discovered the message before it could be disseminated? Anyhow, clearly one should now look warily at all news stories portraying something positive of the US in case they are part of the Pentagon's psy-ops.
With all these revelations in the media, it has been equally surprising to find that our media has ignored a rather crucial piece of information regarding nuclear and missile proliferation. Given how once again Dr Khan is being pilloried and news of the arrest of his Dutch 'friend' is in all the foreign and Pakistani media, how has it escaped us that a US federal court found US citizens guilty of violating US export control laws in order to sell missile technology components to India? This happened on November 22 this year, when a US federal court found two defence companies in New England and their top executives guilty of selling technology to India that helped it to improve the Agni missile. The law breakers had managed to export a control panel, needed to operate a production size hot isostatic press, to India's Defence Research Development Laboratory in April 1988. According to the court, the defendants' provided equipment to India which "may facilitate nuclear weaponry and thereby threaten stability in South Asia." We all know how India's nuclear ambitions progressed up to 1998, but why should this important news be of no interest to the media as opposed to a story relating to Dr Khan's Dutch connections?
The issue is important, because presently there is a concerted effort to push under wraps Indo-Iranian nuclear cooperation -- both at the level of the two states, which continue to have a nuclear cooperation treaty since neither has rescinded it, and at the level of individual Indian scientists. Iran's efforts to deflect its nuclear issue on to Pakistan are unfortunate, but why is the rest of the international community not prepared to examine the Indian connection to Iran? Is there a more insidious long term intent discernable here, especially on the part of the EU and US? After all, the US is undermining the NPT itself with its nuclear agreement with India and many European states are also moving to provide India technology contrary to the Nuclear Supplier Guidelines. Is this also part of the Pentagon's plan to protect certain interests of its strategic allies, especially those which may call into question the efficacy of US agreements?
Unfortunately, Pakistan seems to be a choice target to attack on all issues -- as if extremism, violent religious cults, corruption and political inadequacies are peculiar only to us! Perhaps we present an easy target because we are highly critical of ourselves. To read the press would be to believe that nothing is right with us. This is certainly not the reality on the ground, despite all our faults. We are allowing ourselves to be overcome by a negative milieu in which all and sundry feel they can lash out at will and get away with it. Mr Crocker certainly felt that. Yet, there should be no room for a viceroy in the sovereign state of Pakistan.
The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad

[B]Indian intimacy with Saddam[/B]

Shireen M Mazari

Recent revelations regarding former Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh's linkage to the UN oil-for-food programme scandal should not have come as a surprise to anyone who knew of the long history of close cooperation between India and the Saddam regime, especially between the Iraqi Ba'ath Party and the Indian Congress Party. This relationship had a strong strategic dimension to it which the US would do well to recall as it goes into a strategic partnership with India which includes a nuclear dimension.
The India-Iraq relationship also had a nuclear component going back to the first Indian nuclear test in 1974, as highlighted in a document of the Washington, DC-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). It was in 1974 that Saddam flew into India specifically to sign a nuclear cooperation agreement with the Indira Gandhi government. This agreement included exchange of scientists, training and technology transfers. Iraqi scientists were working in India's fuel reprocessing laboratories when India separated plutonium for its first nuclear explosive device. Later, those same Iraqi scientists were in charge of the nuclear fuel reprocessing unit supplied to Iraq by the Italian company, CNEN. This was followed by an Indian scientist spending a year at the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission's computer centre, training Iraqis in the use of nuclear computer codes.
So it was hardly surprising to find Iraq supporting India's nuclear tests. The Ba'ath Party's newspaper, Al-Thawra, declared: "We cannot see how anyone can ask India not to develop nuclear weapons and its long-range missiles at a time [when] it is like any other big state with its human and scientific potential" (ISIS brief, May 28, 1998). Also, in May 1998, a Baghdad weekly, owned by Saddam Hussein's eldest son Uday, announced that India had agreed to enrol several groups of Iraqi engineers "in advanced technological courses" scheduled for mid-July. The field of training was left unspecified.
An Indian company, NEC Engineers Private Ltd, is believed to have helped Iraq acquire equipment and materials "capable of being used for the production of chemicals for mass destruction," according to a CNN report of January 26, 2003. The company also sent technical personnel to Iraq, including to the Fallujah II chemical plant. Between 1998 and 2001, NEC Engineers Private Ltd shipped 10 consignments of highly sensitive equipment, including titanium vessels and centrifugal pumps to Iraq.
Nor was Iraq-India cooperation limited to the hi-tech and nuclear fields. Before the Gulf War of 1990-91, Iraq was one of the major sources of India's oil imports and one of the biggest markets for India's project exports, mostly in the construction sector. With the onset of the Gulf War in 1990-91, and the imposition of UN sanctions, India's trade with Iraq suffered seriously. That is why India opposed the sanctions regime. As late as September 2000, India's then minister of state for external affairs, Ajit Kumar Panja, visited Iraq. In his meeting with Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yasin Ramadhan, he said, "India has been and is against any sanctions and we tried to convince all bilaterally and multilaterally, even at UN forums, that sanctions against Iraq must be lifted."
On the sidelines of the 1998 NAM Summit in Durban, South Africa, a meeting between India's prime minister at that time, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and the then Iraqi vice-president, expanded Indo-Iraqi cooperation with the setting up of a joint business council. In November 2000, Iraqi Vice-President Taha Ramadhan visited India, the highest Iraqi dignitary to travel to India in 25 years.
The Indian media consistently played up the intimacy of the Saddam regime with India and the consistency of the support provided by Saddam for Indian positions. Under a Times of India headline of July 7, 2002, 'Iraq conveys support to India on J&K issue', it was reported that Saddam Hussein had "conveyed his principled and unwavering support to India on the Kashmir issue and said Iraq greatly values its relationship with New Delhi." Saddam conveyed his views to the visiting Indian petroleum minister, Ram Naik, and declared that "friendship with India had been a source of strength not only to Iraq but to the Arab world." Two days later (July 9, 2002), the Times of India carried another story titled 'Iraq prizes ties with India: Saddam Hussein', in which Saddam stated that "We are ready to cooperate with India, and we say this not because we are under siege but within a strategic vision of the region and the world; most importantly, within the framework of India's relations with Arabs." During this visit by Ram Naik to Iraq in July 2002, Iraq and India signed an agreement to boost trade ties, especially in the oil sector. During the visit, the Iraqi oil minister, Amir Muhammed Rasheed, described India as a "strategic partner". By July 2002, bilateral trade between Baghdad and New Delhi under the 'oil-for-food' programme had reached $1.1bn. So an Indian connection in the scandal related to this programme was almost a given.
It is believed that talks on oil vouchers probably took place when the then Iraqi vice-president visited India in 2000. According to India Today (December 12, 2005), Singh managed to get an invitation in his name and then got clearance for a four-member Congress delegation to visit Iraq from January 17-24, 2001. Singh then added his son and his business partner, Andaleeb Sehgal, to the official delegation. Apparently, it was on this trip that the deal was sealed and four million barrels of oil were allocated by the Saddam regime to Singh and four million to the Congress.
Nor did India develop close strategic links only with Iraq, once again during a Congress government. Following a visit to Iran by Indira Gandhi in April 1974, in which agreements were reached on a number of cooperative ventures including in the technological field, India went on to sign a formal nuclear cooperation agreement with Iran in February 1975 -- similar to the one signed with Iraq a few years earlier. The Iran-India nuclear connection in terms of scientist and technology exchanges has been listed in these columns earlier. But clearly in the seventies and eighties, the Indian state saw nothing wrong with playing a proliferator role in the nuclear field. The energy issue has also been critical in Indian considerations, and continues to be so. That Iraq and Iran are major energy suppliers was certainly a crucial consideration for India in its nuclear cooperation with these two countries. Now India is also wooing the Saudi Kingdom and King Abdullah is to be the chief guest at the Republic Day celebrations in New Delhi in January 2006. Of course, the Muslim angle is also a factor as close links with Muslim states plays well with India's Muslim population.
The question is whether the US and other western powers are either oblivious to this role or have deliberately chosen to ignore the Saddam-India connections that continue to surface. As the US moves effectively towards undermining the NPT and recognising India as a nuclear weapons power, the answer to this question will clarify the proliferation issue for the Pakistani state and civil society.

[B]Dangerous politics of exclusivity

Shireen M Mazari[/B]

The political mistrust dominating and distorting the issue of water distribution and dams in Pakistan have become so pronounced that unless these are overcome, there can be no rational debate on the issue. Undoubtedly the country needs three major dams but the where and how surrounding one of them has become a political minefield. This has been the result of years of a politically exclusivist approach that has been adopted by the ruling elite. No matter which province we look at, politics from the local level up have been and are dominated by political mafias involving families, biradaris, tribes, and so on. Instead of sharing the expanding network of power, they continue to sustain an exclusivity that marginalises anyone wanting to break the mode.
We witnessed this in the last stages of the local body elections in Rajanpur district, but the example is not unique. After successfully challenging the political mafia at the union council level, we were bulldozed into supporting one of the two political mafias that prevail in the district. The Dreeshak mafia, presently in power with the support of the deputy speaker of the Punjab Assembly -- who left the PPP after decades of a politically useless existence -- sought total control. Mr Dreeshak is an MNA and of his two sons, one is the Punjab finance minister and the other has now become the district nazim. So the mafia looked within its circle to the deputy speaker's nephew -- whose name had only just been struck from a kidnapping FIR in Rahimyar Khan, thanks to the political power bosses in the Punjab. While no one doubted the hold of the Dreeshak mafia, as with all folk heady with power, they could not accept even a small challenge in the shape of a woman contender for the District's naib nazim post.
It was fascinating to see how the local power plays work because it helped in understanding why the area has remained underdeveloped! No one outside the mafias ever gets to see any of the development funds. As for women, they were barely to be seen in the area in terms of the political landscape until Mehrine Mazari successfully challenged the mafia in the union council nazim elections.
This challenged the mafia structure of the district, so when the district council elections came up, the heat was on. We were offered all manner of political lures if only we complied in the district elections. With the districts now controlling local affairs and the kitty, the national political scene has become far less attractive for those with no national commitment. Becoming fed up with an unresponsive and corrupt system of the local political bosses, we chose to persist with our challenge.
Clearly, President Musharraf's enlightened moderation and support for political space for women in the country has not filtered down to the politicians. Because we had dared to challenge, unsuccessfully, we are now under constant threat in our village from one or the other henchmen of Dreeshak and his sidekick, the deputy speaker of the Punjab Assembly. Where earlier we received calls offering all manner of lucrative political rewards for not challenging the Dreeshak mafia, now we are getting threats of dire consequences.
But we feel the challenge was necessary and worthwhile. After all, for decades the political mafias have controlled the fate of the local people with no attention to health, education and the welfare of women and children. There has never been any accountability of local funds. That is why there is a need to challenge and expose these decadent structures.
President Musharraf must break up these mafias to successfully move this country into enlightened moderation and modernity -- despite pulls by forces of exclusivity. The decadent political mafia is as much of a threat to this society as religious extremism. The mafia mindset does not seek inclusivity, which implies widening the consensual base. Instead it thrives on exclusivity and an 'us vs them' mindset.
The dams' issue has also been distorted by this mindset, creating divisions amongst the provinces and sustaining unresponsive political elites in power. For instance, in Sindh, the waderas are allowed first right to water when the canals open. With no regard for efficiency and conservation, they leave little for the small peasants -- simply telling them that Punjab is stealing their water. The real problem in Sindh is one of maldistribution of water within the province -- which has led to waterlogging. Of the three barrages -- Guddu, Kotri and Sukkur -- the first two serve northern and southern Sindh abundantly, but central Sindh gets very limited water from Sukkur barrage. So what is required is a more equitable distribution of water within Sindh.
As for fears relating to Kalabagh dam (KBD), they centre on the issue of undermining of flood irrigation in the katcha areas, increase in sea intrusion and destruction of the mangrove forests and fish culture as a result of lack of fresh water supply. However, presently on an average basis 35 maf of Indus and its tributaries' water is thrown into the sea below Kotri and the KBD capacity is only to be 6.1 maf --which would leave enough fresh water to flow into the sea. Also, with the amount of water allocated to Sindh from new storage sites on the Indus, there could be all year round water and farming for the katcha areas. How this would impact on the hold of the waderas is another issue!
As for the NWFP, there are serious issues of waterlogging and massive displacement of people, especially in the Mardan area where the drains empty into the Kabul river and it is feared that the raising of the water level as a result of KBD would make these non-functional and result in Swabi getting waterlogged. Yet these fears have been dealt with in the Wapda studies and the KBD design modified accordingly. However, the issue of displacement of people requires sensitive handling.
There is also the issue of monetary royalties for power stations built alongside the large dams and has aggravated inter-provincial suspicions. The NWFP gets royalty for the Tarbela dam powerhouse located within the province. The KBD would have its powerhouse located in the Punjab. Perhaps it is time to examine alternatives to the royalty system.
Undoubtedly the KBD issue needs to be dealt with sensitivity and it does no one any good when the political elite of Punjab chooses to adopt a blustering approach. That the dams are vital is clear. But it may be better to begin by building the non-controversial dams and build the consensus on the KBD through a policy of inclusivity. The politics of exclusivity have been the bane of this country's existence for decades. It is time to affect a paradigm shift in our political culture. A framework of inclusivity requires tolerance and patience and a radical move away from elitism. Power may make exclusivity more tempting in the short run, but no good has ever come from this approach.

[B][SIZE="5"]Pak-India dialogue:
A qualitative change[/SIZE][/B]

Shireen M Mazari

The third round of the composite dialogue between Pakistan and India begins later this month with the foreign secretary-level talks in New Delhi on January 17-18. The atmospherics, that had sustained the 'feel-good' milieu despite no substantive movement on any conflictual issue, have finally altered to reflect a more realistic situation on the ground. Despite Pakistan's continuing concessionary initiatives on Kashmir and other issue areas, India has totally vitiated the atmosphere by holding forth on Balochistan and expressing its 'concern' over what it refers to as the spiralling violence and 'heavy military action'. Even though Pakistan objected to this unwarranted meddling in the country's internal affairs, the Indians continued with their tirades.

Why should we be surprised at this Indian effort to interfere in Balochistan? After all, many of us have been pointing to the fact that India will use its access in Afghanistan to conduct Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) within Pakistan simply to keep Pakistan under pressure. After all, we saw something similar happening when India opened its consulate in Zahidan, Iran and eventually the proof was so overwhelming that Pakistan had to approach the Iranian government. Regardless of the efficacy or otherwise of the present Pakistani government's actions in Balochistan to deal with the terrorist threat, the fact of the matter is that there is abundant money coming from some quarters which is allowing terrorists to purchase sophisticated weapons. Now Iran, with its own sensitivities on its side of Balochistan will hardly want to aid instability so close to its borders at a time when it is already facing other international crises. But the US would like to see Balochistan remain undeveloped so that Iran is not given any access to the East -- all part of its efforts to isolate Iran. And India has never missed an opportunity to try and keep Pakistan bleeding. So there is logic in President Musharraf's accusation that there were strong indications of Indian financial involvement in Balochistan.

But it is not just Indian statements on Balochistan that have vitiated the atmospherics between Pakistan and India. It is also India's continuously negative responses to Pakistani initiatives on Kashmir that have finally altered the atmospherics on the bilateral dialogue. With both Pakistan and the Kashmiri leadership, including Mir Waiz and the APHC, seeking demilitarisation as a major CBM, India has revealed its rigidity on the Kashmir issue by not only rejecting such proposals but also declaring that demilitarisation or redeployment of forces in Indian-Occupied Kashmir was a 'sovereign' decision of New Delhi. In other words, that IOK was Indian territory. Clearly India has not moved an iota since the dialogue commenced on Kashmir despite a continuous flow of suggested concessions from Pakistan! Of course, demilitarisation of Kashmir has been a part of UN resolutions on the conflict also, so Pakistan does not have to give any quid pro quos when it demands the same.

Unfortunately, our somewhat confused Foreign Minister, seems so eager to please what he seems to regards as his Indian constituency that following India's blatant snub of President Musharraf's demilitarisation proposal, he followed up by suggesting that Pakistan was willing to remove its deployed forces from AJK. He then added that Pakistan "also wants the entire region to be demilitarised by both Pakistan and India". So he has either inadvertently, or deliberately, not linked Pakistani demilitarisation with a simultaneous move by India. Instead, he has said that additionally -- the word 'also' is what he used -- Pakistan would like both itself and India to demilitarise the 'entire region'. One really shudders to think how he envisages the composition of this 'entire region!' Words are critical in diplomacy but we are still not careful in how we use them.

Coming back to the dialogue process, now that the false 'feel-good' atmospherics are over, Pakistan needs to take a good hard look at what has been achieved so far in the two years that are now nearing completion, since the dialogue began.

• On Kashmir, India has reasserted its old line of IOK being an integral part of the Indian Union and all that India seems to be seeking is to gain access to freer movement of people and goods across the LoC so that this becomes the de facto international border.

• On Siachin, the Indians want to rewrite the agreement that both sides had almost signed in the late eighties, so that the line from where they would withdraw is demarcated. Effectively this would mean that their territorial claim to that area would be bolstered since demarcation of a withdrawal line implies ownership over it in the first place.

* On the water dispute, India's unrelenting rigidity on Baglihar and Kishanganga has meant that Pakistan will have to persist in seeking international arbitration.

* On Sir Creek also India has failed to budge in order to get an agreement.

So what has happened as a result of the dialogue? More trade opportunities for India and greater access for Indian politicians into Pakistan. A far more insidious development has been the linkages moving apace between Pakistan's Punjab and Indian Punjab. It was strange to hear a call from US Senator Dan Burton asking Pakistan and India to resolve the Khalistan issue. What has Pakistan to do with this issue unless Mr Burton is seeking support for the notion of Greater Punjab? Could this be a new can of worms opening for Pakistan? With Punjabi political leaders gracing Indian Punjab's calendars and with road development from Wagah to Indian sacred sites in Pakistan in full swing what is happening between the two Punjabs?

One additional factor that also needs to be brought into the calculations is the US role now that India and the US are strategic partners and nuclear allies. Judging by the rather worn-out rhetoric and advice of American scholars visiting Pakistan in recent times, the US would like to push Pakistan not only into accepting the Indian position on conflictual issues but also into accepting greater curbs over its nuclear programme and ideally they would like to see open acrimony between Pakistan and Iran. One way is to go along with Indian covert efforts at LIC in Balochistan even though the end game for the two may be different at the strategic level.

Under these circumstances, while breaking off the dialogue would serve no purpose, going into it in a more realistic fashion is certainly the need of the hour. Now that the atmospherics are not clouding the ground realities, Pakistan needs to realise that for two years its peace overtures and initiatives have all been repudiated by an unrelentingly obdurate India. So now we should wait for India to make the next move. Unilateral concessions never work and they have not done so for Pakistan. It is time to alter our game plan as we go in for the third round of the Pakistan-India dialogue process.

The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad

Email: [email]smnews80@hotmail.com[/email]

[B][SIZE="5"]Bajaur: US attempt to destabilise government?[/SIZE][/B] Shireen M Mazari
The missile attack by the US on Pakistani territory in Bajaur Agency on Friday, 13th January, has naturally drawn strong reaction from Pakistanis across the board. The government's reaction has been somewhat muted, even though the US ambassador was summoned by the Foreign Office. At an immediate level, this act reflects a lack of respect for Pakistan's sovereignty and a neo-imperialist approach to the territorial integrity of "other" states. In addition, it once again shows a complete lack of concern for innocent human lives -- especially if they happen to be Muslims. After all, the main victims in this latest US outrage were women and children. Worse still, it also shows that the US is not only trigger happy, but also continues to suffer from bad intelligence -- for which innocent Pakistanis have to pay with their lives. And not as much as even an expression of regret for the loss of innocent lives.
However, going beyond the obvious, one needs to really examine why this action happened at this particular time. One needs to then focus on a disturbing question: Is the US trying to destabilise the present government and the state of Pakistan? What exactly is the US gameplan? The reason why these questions arise is because it is abundantly clear to everyone that Pakistan is in the grip of political controversies, not only over the Kalabagh Dam but also the situation in Balochistan. The last thing the government of Pakistan needed at this time was to see a so-called ally carry out a missile attack on its territories -- especially given that we are supposed to be allies in the war on terror and therefore committed to taking action ourselves, if required, in our own territory against al-Qaeda suspects. After all, it has been Pakistan that has so far helped to deliver all the al-Qaeda leadership to the US. So why this unilateral action?
The suspicions become more substantiated when one sees how the action was coordinated by a media campaign in the US which gave out that the attack was not only in the knowledge of the Pakistan government but supported by them operationally. What purpose can such disinformation serve but to discredit the present GoP? Had there been any truth in this information at all, the intelligence would have not been so inaccurate! For anyone in the GoP who still feels that there was nothing insidious in US intent towards Islamabad should take careful note of Condoleezza Rice's statement defending this arrogant act of violence. She not only stood by the killing of innocent Pakistanis but also declared that the US would "try to address" Pakistani government concerns -- meaning that at the end of the day such concerns clearly were of limited value to the US. She went on to add that al-Qaeda and the Taliban were not "people who could be dealt with lightly", but clearly she regards Pakistanis as such. As for her imperious declaration that the biggest threat to Pakistan is al-Qaeda's attempts to "radicalise" the country, she should rest assured that if the US continues to behave this way in this region and globally, it will do al-Qaeda's job for them. Post-9/11, US policies have created an ever-expanding political space for this terrorist outfit.
But coming back to the timing of the missile attack -- it came a few days before the secretary-level talks between Pakistan and India, which are taking place in the backdrop of Pakistan linking the terrorism in Balochistan to India and India rejecting Pakistan's demilitarisation and self-governance proposals on Kashmir. The missile attack also comes when the GoP is already burdened with critical political issues within the country. The attack precedes the visit to South Asia of US Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Nicholas Burns -- the man who in his ultimate ignorance declared that India had an impeccable record on non-proliferation, having totally ignored India's nuclear cooperation treaties with Iran and the Saddam regime and a well-documented record of Indian nuclear assistance to Iran including in the form of scientists working in Bushehr. Finally, the attack came a few days before Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's visit to the US.
What purpose does such a murderous missile attack serve? It creates more problems within Pakistan for the GoP, especially allowing the opposition forces to unite under a common cause. It destabilises the border area with Afghanistan further, again allowing for greater space to the terrorists. It creates even more problems for the Pakistan military, not only in Balochistan, but also in the tribal areas along the Afghan border. It certainly helps detract Pakistan from a forceful approach towards India in the secretary-level talks; and it presents a dilemma for the political forces within the GoP thereby creating more fissures within the ruling party. Already there have been calls from some PML members for the cancellation of the US visit by the Pakistani Prime Minister. Whichever way one looks at it, there seems to be little purpose in this unwarranted act of military destruction on the part of the US, beyond undermining the present GoP. A dangerous aspect of the present US policy is the growing sense that it is attempting to play the military against the political forces in Pakistan. Even more dangerous is that this action will add to the alienation and misery of the people of the tribal belt; so is the US intent to break up the state of Pakistan? US arrogance is also reflected in the declarations of US Senators like McCain and Bayh that the US would do the same again -- with Bayh referring to the tribal belt as the "wild, wild west", and we know what happened to the native population of the "wild west" in the US!
So it makes little sense for the Pakistan government to pussyfoot on the issue of condemning the US missile attack -- the second of its kind so far against Pakistan. At the very least the Prime Minister should postpone his present visit to the US. There are times when the leadership has to show a greater sensitivity to its own civil society from which it eventually must draw its strength, rather than the demands of external forces. We have shown an amazing level of tolerance for US abuse of our sovereignty, including raids across the international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan to kidnap individuals from Pakistani soil. Surely we have reached the limits of tolerance now?
Therefore, we should also tell Mr Burns not to visit us on this round of his South Asian tour. Finally, the President needs to summon back our ambassador in the US, as this will signal a strong and unequivocal condemnation of the US action. We should not allow ourselves to be treated with the level of disdain and frivolity which the US is heaping on us, even as it forges ahead with its strategic partnership with India. There comes a time when we need to be assertive regardless of our internal limitations -- especially when we are in the right in defending the sanctity of our territory and our nationals' lives. We expect no less from any GoP

[B][SIZE="2"][SIZE="3"][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Inexplicable commissions and omissions[/FONT][/SIZE][/SIZE][/B]

Shireen M Mazari

It must always be an ego-boosting experience for American officials to visit Pakistan after New Delhi. After all, in India they meet only their equivalent Indian officials and political leaders. Hence we saw Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns meet with Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran. On arrival in Pakistan, in the wake of the Bajaur missile attacks that killed innocent Pakistani civilians and in the face of an arrogant American refusal to even express regret, forget about apologising, Burns had access to all tiers of Pakistani officialdom and leadership.

No one bothered to recall Mr Burns's defence of the Indo-US nuclear agreement in terms of India's so-called 'impeccable' non-proliferation record. Conveniently suffering from amnesia, Burns chose to forget India's nuclear and other military dealings with the Saddam regime and with Iran. And it is now abundantly clear that one of our major failings is our excessive politeness and accommodation when it comes to foreigners, especially from the West. So of course we were not about to correct Burns's politically correct amnesia.

However, what was truly astounding to learn was that many Pakistani politicians who had been taking on the government on the Bajaur issue adopted silence at a meeting the US ambassador had arranged at his residence, on January 21, for select to meet with Burns. Yet another meeting was held a day or so later, which was reported in some sections of the press. Of course one would have thought that, as a protest against Bajaur, the Pakistanis would have refused the invite. After all, so many in the opposition were wanting the government to take a strong stand on the issue and some politicians were advocating cancellation of the prime minister's visit to the US. But there they all were, at the US ambassador's residence, greeting Mr Burns and - barring the MQM representative -- maintaining a deafening silence on Bajaur (at least in the Saturday meeting).

Worse still, instead of discussing US policies in this region and the unacceptable efforts of the US to delink India's nuclear status from that of Pakistan's, the Pakistanis present chose to embark on a harangue against the state of affairs within the country and the terrible acts of commission and omission by the present government. Now what was the purpose of discussing Pakistan's internal issues with a US official? Are we seeking US intervention on an even greater level within our domestic affairs? It is no wonder then that while the US discusses security and foreign policy issues and cooperation with India, in Pakistan they make pronouncements on our democratic dispensation and other internal problems.

This is truly our national tragedy: we cannot decide whether we want to assert our sovereignty and keep foreign powers like the US from meddling in our internal affairs, or if we want them to listen to us vent against the state and intervene. After all, there is no point in ranting and raving to a US official unless we are seeking his country's intervention in our domestic affairs. Is this what our opposition is seeking? If that be the case, they can hardly complain about the government's seeming compliance with US policies. One wonders where our national self-respect and circumspection is when we come into contact with US officials? Is it any wonder they can kill our citizens with impunity?

We now have our Foreign Office spokesperson declaring that Pakistan has not sought an apology from the US. Why? Do we hold our citizens lives in such contempt that we can simply accept their deaths as so much acceptable 'collateral damage'? What is extremely disturbing is a report in the US weekly Time magazine stating that Islamabad has an understanding with Washington that the US can conduct military attacks within Pakistan's border regions following which Pakistan will conduct formal protests to deflect domestic criticism. One hopes this report will be strongly contradicted by the Government of Pakistan for it totally undermines the country's basic sovereignty.

Meanwhile, as a member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), I am disturbed by the latest HRCP Report on Balochistan - not only by what is included but also by what has been ignored or merely mentioned in passing. I have always held the HRCP and its chairperson in the highest esteem and admired the latter's indomitable courage in the face of extreme personal dangers. While we may disagree on many issues, there is never any doubt as to her commitment to the upholding of human rights. That is why the new report on Balochistan is a surprise, because it focuses on only one side of the story.

It documents abuses by the state but does not examine the root causes that have militarised the situation. It merely touches on the tribal system and the tribal leaders who continue to maintain private armies, massive armaments and their own system of justice. It condemns the state's use of military action but does not recommend how the state should deal with the land mines laid by 'militants' and rockets launched by unknown groups and individuals against not only military personnel but also the head of state. The militarised response of the state has not come about in a vacuum and rocket fire cannot be countered simply with political dialogue.

Interestingly, the report does accept the existence of 'militants' and expresses concern "over the fact that militants had placed land mines along roads". However, in its recommendations, it merely requests these militants to de-mine these areas! But how should the state deal with those who indulge in such militarised activities?

The report is also unwilling to recommend ways to bring tribal leaders into the mainstream of national laws, even though it admits that "Balochistan is awash with arms". The report does recommend that "all steps" be taken to end penal sanctions, jirgas and private prisons, but how does the state compel the tribal leaders to disband their private militias, jails and hand over their large arsenals? The report also mentions inter-tribal feuds but again does not focus on these as one major source of human rights abuse. As for tribal norms, these are also not examined and condemned for their multiple human rights abuses.

In terms of disappearances and the deaths of innocent citizens, the report gives a harrowing account which cannot be condoned by anyone. But it is interesting that the report especially notes that "the dead included some Hindus", as if that makes the killings worse. The report talks of "alarming accounts of summary executions, some allegedly carried out by paramilitary forces." Who are the other parties who may have allegedly carried out these executions? Why have these not been mentioned? Elaboration on this count would give a clearer picture of the brutal tribal system. If the people fear the state, they also fear the wrath of the tribal chiefs.

The recommendations should be heeded but there are some noticeable omissions. Why a crucial recommendation to deweaponise the province has been left out is inexplicable. After all, unless there is deweaponisation, violence will always remain endemic. Of course, it is a weakness of the state that the tribal system continues to follow its own writ. But it is also easier to condemn the state while ignoring the ground realities of the violence and abuse of human rights, especially of women, that are part of the tribal system. If a rational assessment is to be made of the present situation in Balochistan, all aspects of the ground realities have to be examined fully and the fault lines exposed across the board. This is where the HRCP's latest Report on Balochistan is found wanting.
=============================================

[B][SIZE="5"]Condemned either way[/SIZE][/B]
Shireen M Mazari
The Hamas victory in the recent Palestinian elections was a rare spark of hope that a civil society can collectively impede the will and diktat of the powerful. Perhaps Mr Bush is having second thoughts to his democracy agenda now! He wanted democracy to spread to the Middle East and that is what the Hamas victory has signalled. It also reflects an honesty and courage of commitment and tenacity on the part of the Palestinian people -- a people without a state but with a tremendous sense of nationhood.
Meanwhile, the US continues its arrogant approach to foreign policy -- both at the official and non-official levels. While the US Administration has not so much as even whimpered a hint of regret at the killing of innocent Pakistani citizens in Bajaur, the US media along with its British counterparts has continued to rant against the Pakistani state in what they see as its lack of effort in helping nab the al-Qaeda leaders. However, what is more ominous is that a pattern seems to be emerging in the US Administration's viceregal abuse of Pakistan's sovereignty and the US-British media tirades against the Government of Pakistan, especially the military.
The pattern suggests a deliberate effort to destabilise the state of Pakistan by undermining its domestic credibility and support in particular. So, despite the protests over Bajaur, we continue to see the US military carrying out military action on Pakistani soil against Pakistani citizens -- the latest being the violation of Pakistani air space by a US helicopter on 29th January and the harassment of Pakistani citizens in the tribal belt by the release of flares by US helicopters which have hit children and terrorised the locals. Alongside, the US and British media at regular intervals come up with editorials and stories that try to establish the reluctance of the Pakistani leadership towards capture of al-Qaeda leaders. Never mind that the arrest of most of the members of this group so far could not have been possible without the help of Pakistan -- that little fact is conveniently forgotten.
That is why we saw the Washington Post, an obsessively anti-Pakistan newspaper, write a diatribe against Pakistan and its President (January 25th). There was nothing new in the content of this diatribe. Once again it bemoaned what it saw as an avoidance by President Musharraf of an "all-out campaign against the Islamic extremists in his country". Presumably the paper would want to see the Pakistani state kill all and sundry with any affiliation to religious parties in the country. It talks of the continuing economic aid coming from the US, but it fails to mention the economic costs Pakistan has incurred as a frontline state in the war against terrorism.
Nor does it accept that the manner in which the US is conducting this war has resulted in the creation of more space for the terrorists when the strategy should have been of denying political space to them. But then it is difficult for an arrogant superpower and its civil society to accept their strategic errors. Much easier to make countries like Pakistan the punching bag for the continuing survival of al-Qaeda and its leaders! And while A. Q. Khan continues to be maligned as the "greatest criminal proliferator," the Post has forgotten its own proliferator, Oppenheimer, and its own government's proliferation role still continuing within the context of Israel. And there is also a memory lapse regarding India's nuclear cooperation with Iran and the Saddam regime. Even in the context of Khan, there is a convenient amnesia regarding his "network" comprising Europeans!
As believers in democracy we, of course, continue to accept all the insults and abuse meted out to us by the US Administration and its "free" media. But in its haste to abuse President Musharraf, the Washington Post definitely crossed all bounds of rationality and decency when it referred to the President of Pakistan as "this meretricious military ruler." Assuming that they are well-versed in the English language, one assumes that they knew the meaning of the word, "meretricious", so they knew the word is normally used in a feminine context and they knew the abuse they were hurling. According to the Oxford dictionary, the word means "showily attractive but cheap and is derived from the Latin word, "meretrix" meaning "prostitute". Need one say anything more? But it is incumbent upon the country's representative in Washington to take up this issue since it is all very well to criticise a head of state but there must surely be some sense of decency in the language used.
A few days after this Washington Post hysteria, we saw the British press have another go at the Government of Pakistan. This time it was the Sunday Telegraph which indirectly justified the US abuse of Pakistani sovereignty and its attack against Pakistani civilians in Bajaur, without prior notification to the Pakistani government. It stated that the US would have nabbed Osama bin Laden two years earlier when they had information that he was in Zhob in Balochistan, had Pakistan not delayed giving consent for a US attack. By the time the permission came, it was too late. Clearly such stories not only undermine Pakistan generally, but also specifically target the Pakistan military as an institution, raising unsubstantiated suspicions on its intent. The Pakistan government has denied this story and it seems a little absurd that it took two years for this damning information to come to light. But it fits neatly into US efforts to counter the accusations of violation of Pakistani sovereignty and the killing of innocent Pakistani citizens!
Nor is it just Pakistan that is the subject of a concerted vilification campaign in the Western media. Islam itself is being ridiculed in the name of freedom of the press -- especially in Europe. The recent example is the scandal of the blasphemous cartoons in the Danish press which the Europeans have justified in the name of freedom of speech! Saudi civil society, along with some Arab states, has done well to counter this European stance by boycotting Danish products and recalling their envoys. After all, freedom of choice is everyone's right -- and Muslims must have the freedom to exercise this choice of economic and diplomatic boycott of Denmark.
Nor is this all. The Indian media has also been capitalising on the anti-Islam sentiment dominant in the West post-9/11. For instance, Karan Thapar, writing in the Hindustan Times last week on "Number Crunching" refers to his friend pointing out the importance of the number 11. The effort is to link the acts of 9/11 to an alleged passage in the Quran -- thereby trying to show that terrorists who happen to be Muslims will justify 9/11 with reference to their Holy Book! The reference given for the passage quoted is 9:11. Having gone back to the Quran, I discovered this to be a total fabrication because the verse cited is not there. Perhaps Thapar and his friend were so obsessed by linking terrorist events to the Holy Book of Islam that they forgot others may actually check the source cited.
Clearly, we cannot please our habitual detractors, so let us go the way of our national interests.
The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad

[B]Exposing freedom myths legally[/B]

Shireen M Mazari

It is unfortunate that the whole issue of so-called freedom of expression that the West has been throwing at us in defence of the printing of blasphemous cartoons of our Prophet (PBUH) has got lost in the violence that has followed in the Muslim world. Clearly, this violent reaction reflects the anger and frustration we as Muslims feel over our inability to stop the growing Islamophobia and victimisation of Muslims in Europe and elsewhere -- which was always there in these parts, but which found a rationalisation for overt manifestation in the wake of 9/11.

Strong protest was only to be expected given the offending nature of the cartoons and the almost conspiratorial approach of the primarily European press to keep Muslim passions inflamed by reprinting these. Unfortunately, the debate seems to be shifting away from the real issue relating to the cartoons to one where allegations of Muslim intolerance and violence are taking centre stage. This is truly a travesty of justice for it allows the guilty -- the European press and states -- to hide their wrongdoing behind the volatility and violence of Muslim civil societies.

That is why it is necessary now, as never before, for Muslims to get past emotive and violent reactions, and coalesce together to take on those who abuse Islam and Muslims under all manner of guises including 'freedom of expression' on their terms and within their legal frameworks. Because the fact of the matter is that in the context of the cartoon issue, European states and their press are guilty of contravening the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. While guaranteeing freedom of expression, Article 10 of this Convention states:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection or rights of others...

So when the Prime Minister of Denmark declares that he cannot do anything against Jyllands-Posten, the paper that began the controversy, he is clearly lying because the European Human Rights Convention was ratified by Denmark in 1953 and is an integral part of the Danish constitution. In fact, before ratification, the Danish government made certain changes in Danish law so that it was in consonance with the Convention. Hence, the government should have sued the paper for breaking the law of the land.

Article 11 of the French constitution states that: "The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

And France too is party to the European Convention.

The Norwegian constitution, in Article 100, declares: "There shall be liberty of the Press. No person may be punished for any writing, whatever its contents, which he has caused to be printed or published, unless he wilfully and manifestly has either himself shown or incited others to disobedience to the laws, contempt of religion, morality or the constitutional powers or resistance to their orders, or has made false and defamatory accusations against anyone."

Now, on what grounds can the French and Norwegian governments claim an inability to take legal action against those newspapers that have clearly violated their countries' constitutions? In fact, Muslims in Europe should have used the legal route, in addition to their street protests, and sued the various newspapers and the states that took no action against these papers, in their national courts as well as the European Court.

However, to step back further, this whole issue of freedom of expression really does not fit into the Jyllands-Posten case because it was not the cartoonists who of their own volition got the idea to come up with cartoons against the Prophet of Islam (PBUH). Instead, they were deliberately commissioned by the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten -- as the paper itself explained on its culture page, on September 30, 2005, where it carried a statement entitled 'The painting of a portrait of Islam's Prophet':

"In the current season, three theatres have staged satirical plays about George W Bush, but none have contemplated doing a similar thing about Bin Laden ... In Denmark, if we are not careful, it is possible for self-censorship to take on an unpleasant dimension. For this reason, Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Press Painters Association to paint a portrait of Islam's Prophet."

So let us be clear about this so-called 'freedom of expression' and the claimed legal helplessness of the European governments to take action against the papers printing the offensive cartoons. All this is absolute rubbish and this is where Muslims can take on the guilty in a non-violent and legal manner. That Muslims have been fair game in countries like Denmark has been clear for some time. In April 2005 their Queen declared that Danes should show their opposition to Islam. In September 2005 we saw a member of the Danish Parliament, Ms Louise Frevert, put hateful articles on her website which declared that young Muslims, even if born in Denmark, had fundamentalist leanings which were incompatible with Danish society. According to her, "Our laws forbid us to kill our enemies in public so the only remedy is to fill our prisons with these criminals. Most efficient method would probably be to send Muslims to Russian prisons for a fee of DKK 25 per day."

Is this not an advocacy of hate and violence? Yet no one thought to take legal action against her! This is where the Muslims are found wanting.

There are other avenues for action by Muslim states and societies which also do not need the use of violence, which only detracts from the real issue and the guilty. Economic measures need to be taken by Muslim states such as a refusal to buy products from specific European states and New Zealand. The agricultural sector of these states would surely suffer an immediate blow. Basically, economic responses are also very effective if political and diplomatic responses fail to stir the guilty states into legal action against their nationals, which is required by their own laws. It is time consumer power became more effective in Muslim states.

Incidentally, to give credit to the US, its condemnation of the cartoons should be appreciated. At the end of the day, Muslims need to develop more effective responses to the abuse of Islam and Muslims that is spreading in Europe and parts of the dominion. Violence always backfires.

Targeting Islam and Muslim polities
 

[SIZE="3"][B]Targeting Islam and Muslim polities[/B][/SIZE]
-Shireen M Mazari

It is a sad time for Muslims. Europeans have declared open season on Islam with blasphemy and abuse deliberately going unpunished by states. The unprecedented scale of protest from Muslim civil societies is also being misread as something happening at the behest of extremists and/or Syria and Iran. Some recognised European experts on Islam, like Olivier Roy, have declared that the protests go beyond the issue of the cartoons. Some have even tried to link the protest to the lack of freedoms in some Muslim polities! Well all this may comfort those who refuse to accept the extent of hurt and anger caused to all Muslims by the unpunished acts of blasphemy against Islam and its Prophet (peace be upon him), but it is absolutely incorrect.

The fact of the matter is that all shades of Muslims are angry and want to see the guilty brought to book and the issue is very much of the cartoons themselves. No one has to push the protest forward. We are all protesting because we are angry and hurt by the injustice of the countries allowing their own laws to be broken because the targets are Islam and Muslims. Contrast this with the action taken against historian David Irving who denied the Holocaust and has been in prison in Austria, since 2005, under a warrant issued in 1989, for this denial. Denmark, too, has seen the same Jyllands-Posten editor, who was supposedly taking a stand for "freedom of expression" when he commissioned and printed the blasphemous cartoons suddenly being sent on holiday when he felt he must also print anti-holocaust cartoons!

So, it becomes increasingly clear that Islam and Muslims are now acceptable targets for abuse in Europe and other parts of the Christian world. So much so that we are now seeing revelations of yet more physical and mental abuse being heaped on Muslims in Iraq by the occupying forces -- this time the victims being mere teenagers. As if Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharaib were not enough of abuse against Muslim prisoners, British forces seem to have developed a perverse joy in the physical abuse of Iraqi teenagers. A few sentiments of regret by Blair and a news item stating that one of the guilty soldiers has been arrested is all that one has gotten in response from the British Government. Even here, the name of the offending soldier has been kept out. Why? After all, the teenagers were abused in public with one clearly deranged soldier giving vent to his thrill in witnessing this abuse. Once again, even guilty Europeans must be protected while Muslims remain fair game.

And now we are hearing of yet another invasion of a Muslim state in the offing -- this time Iran. And the pretext? Its nuclear programme. Consider the following: North Korea opts out of the NPT, declares it has nuclear weapons and intends to continue down this path. So what does the US do? Get involved in the Six Party talks while keeping the North Korean issue at the UNSC on ice. Then we have Iran, reiterating its intent of staying in the NPT, stating it simply wants to pursue its right to enrich uranium as allowed for under the NPT, makes a clean confession of its past omissions, allows inspections, disavows any intent to produce nuclear weapons, so what do we get? The US threatening the possibility of military action against Iran. Ironically, no one is allowed to cast any aspersions at all or seek any limits on Israel's nuclear programme and weapons' stockpiles. This threat of military action comes alongside the British Foreign Secretary's statement to a parliamentary committee, on 8 February, that there was no proof that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. But then the US has never waited for proof when it seeks military action against a Muslim state.

This is not to say that Iran has not been guilty of violations of the NPT, but if it really wanted to go the nuclear weapon route it would have left the NPT and not held its nuclear programme up for inspections and negotiations. As for producing fissile material, no non-nuclear party to the NPT has a larger and more threatening programme than Japan. Japan has a massive fast breeder programme and is in the process of building the Rokkasho-mura reprocessing plant. Already, in Japan's pilot Tokai reprocessing plant, 206 kg of plutonium have gone unaccounted for. But we have not heard anyone refer to this, even at the IAEA.

Of course, sending the Iran issue to the UNSC will only up the ante and politicise the issue even further, leaving little flexibility for negotiations -– that is, if the US is prepared to have negotiations. After all, the US still suffers from an Iran trauma since the Islamic Revolution and the hostage crisis that followed. But for other members of the UN, some pertinent questions need to be answered if one is to assess the value of moving the issue out of the IAEA, which has a technical rather than a political focus, to the UNSC.

* First, what will be the next step, once Iran has been reported to the UNSC? Is there a cohesive strategy that exists on this?

* Second, now that Iran has decided to voluntarily implement the Additional Protocol and has also taken some transparency measures, that go beyond the IAEA safeguards and Additional Protocol, is the international community better off? The suspension on the enrichment was voluntary and non-legally binding so how can this be made legally-binding now just to try and find some rationalisation for taking Iran to the UNSC. After all, Iran continues to observe the regular NPT safeguards.

* If Iran refuses to cooperate with an UNSC resolution, what will be the response of the international community? In the case of Iraq, non-cooperation impeded verification. As for sanctions -– will they be enforceable effectively? Will there be military action a la Iraq-invasion style by the US and a coalition of the willing with a post-event UNSC resolution to give it legal cover? Will that help stabilise the region or enable an effective response to the situation in terms of non-proliferation, which the US itself seems to have reneged upon in the wake of its nuclear deal with India?

Clearly, the US approach has only put the international community, including Iran, on a lose-lose path and any military action against Iran will end what is left of stability in this region. It seems the US will target the oil installations of Iran, which are clustered together, with cruise missiles and then try to take physical control of them. The oil resource factor in play again!

For Pakistan, the danger lies not simply in the fallout on the domestic polity of any military action against Iran. With the US delinking India's nuclear status from that of Pakistan, a far greater danger lies in the possibility of a similar threat being given to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan's nuclear programme -- which still sits uncomfortably with the US. Otherwise why should the US deny Pakistan the same nuclear recognition it is offering to India?

New forms of old threats
 

[SIZE="3"][B]New forms of old threats[/B][/SIZE]
Shireen M Mazari

While some very important developments in the context of Pakistan-India relations merit major focus this week, two new developments, one in Austria and one in the US, should jolt any Muslim still sanguine about how the West views Muslims and Islam into a reality mode. Post-9/11, it truly is open season on Muslims and Islam even as the West reasserts its sensitivity towards the Jews. This was shown only too starkly in the three-year prison sentence awarded to historian David Irving by an Austrian court for his denial of the Holocaust. There was no support for freedom of expression in this case even though the issue in question was a historical event and not blasphemy of the Prophet of Islam, one of the leading religions of the world today. Just as anti-Holocaust cartoons cannot be printed in the Danish press, no one in Europe can have a revisionist view of Nazism and the Holocaust.

Meanwhile, in the US there is an outcry because control of six major US ports is being given to a UAE -- that is Arab -- company, Dubai World Ports, after it won the bidding. It appears that while American and European companies can have free access to the Muslim world and can operate in sensitive areas, including energy and communications, Arab companies cannot have a reciprocal freedom to operate in the West. What we in the Muslim world need to do is to see patterns because that allows a better comprehension of the in-built biases against us in the western world.

Meanwhile, Pakistanis have been consumed by the violence that has increasingly accompanied the protests against the blasphemous cartoons. In the process some critical developments this month have gone by without much attention or comment. First, there was the bizarre statement from the Indian president, in Singapore, that in about 50 years there was the possibility of a Pakistan-India confederation. His understanding of history is confused, because he supported his argument by citing the case of the two Germanies! Or perhaps age has caused a certain level of amnesia in Mr Kalam's mind because the two Germanies were the result of post-war occupation of Germany by the four Allied powers -- not a result of post-colonial independence. Also, of course, both Pakistan and India were created in 1947 out of a colonial entity, British India, so both were 1947 constructs in their independent shape.

However, the Indian president's statement does reveal a particular Indian mindset that still views Partition as a temporary event. Never mind that 1971 led to the creation of Bangladesh -- a reaffirmation of the two-nation theory -- rather than the expansion of the Indian state of West Bengal. The Indian trauma over Partition persists.

That is why while Pakistan has been prepared to go that extra mile in its peace moves, India continues to be playing for time on the conflictual issues. Despite myriad proactive suggestions from Pakistan, India maintains an obduracy on conflicts like Kashmir. In fact, a pattern of hostile intent is beginning to emerge visibly from the Indian side, which should be a warning to Pakistan. Apart from the questionable diplomatic stance reflected in the Indian president's statement in Singapore, more ominous has been the growing concern that India is increasingly involved in the terrorist acts in Balochistan.

Many of us have been suspecting that India would get involved in low-intensity operations in Balochistan once it opened six consulates in Afghanistan, especially those close to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. After all, Pakistan had been protesting Indian activities from its consulate in Zahedan earlier. Finally, the Pakistan government has had to go public with the Indian agency RAW's involvement in Balochistan, and has formally handed over evidence to this effect to the Afghan president. The Karzai government, despite statements to the contrary, seems to have an inbuilt hostility towards Pakistan. Given that some of its cabinet members have had close links to India, this is not surprising, although President Karzai's periodic accusations against Pakistan are a little disturbing.

However, the Afghan government's complicity, be it indirect, with Indian designs is a serious issue and one hopes the Karzai government will move effectively on this count -- especially since we are constantly being told to deal more effectively on the al-Qaeda-Taliban issue.

What makes the new Indian threat from Afghanistan extremely serious is the fact that India sent 300 commandos into the Kandahar area in the first week of February -- as given out by official sources to the Indian media. The rationalisation was that there are Indian workers in the area, but this logic is a little absurd because if every country that had workers in Afghanistan sent their forces to 'protect' these workers, there would be utter chaos. After all, there are Chinese and Pakistani workers also present and they have also been attacked. So, should China and Pakistan also send in their commandos to protect their workers in Afghanistan? And would the Karzai government allow us such access?

One needs to question the Karzai government's intent in allowing Indian commandos into a clearly volatile and sensitive area. The 300 Indian commandos are bound to add to the instability of that region -- as is their intent.

As for President Karzai stating that he had given a list to Pakistan pointing out the Taliban figures sheltering in Pakistan, it appears no one in Islamabad knows who was given the list. So what is the Afghan game all about, especially the constant accusations against Pakistan? Clearly, there is a pattern here because Indian actions are well thought out and India's close links to the Karzai government has allowed the Indians operational space against Pakistan on its western borders.

Nor is this all. An Indian maritime aircraft also violated Pakistani air space earlier this month over Pakistan's Exclusive Economic Zone. Why are all these things happening now when we thought the dialogue process was inching forward, despite Indian intransigence on Kashmir and other conflicts? Clearly, one intent is to keep Pakistan preoccupied internally as India moves ahead on controversial nuclear deals with France and the US. As it is, the French president's visit to India has gone almost unnoticed by Pakistan as has the nuclear deal between France and India which effectively accepts India's nuclear weapons status. India is desperate to de-link its nuclear status from that of Pakistan's. The Indo-US nuclear deal already provides de facto recognition of India's nuclear weapons status and the US has reiterated that it will not have a similar agreement with Pakistan.

For Pakistan this de-linkage between its nuclear status and that of India is going to be the most threatening long-term development, impinging directly on our overall security parameters as well as the status of our nuclear programme. That is why we need to act pre-emptively on that count, but we cannot do so effectively if we continue to remain preoccupied and destabilised domestically.

The Bush visit: premature euphoria
 

[SIZE="3"][B]The Bush visit: premature euphoria[/B][/SIZE]
Shireen M Mazari

Even as the cartoons' issue continues to linger with the Europeans becoming ever more arrogant in their defence of the indefensible, the Bush visit has taken centre-stage in Pakistan. The pre-visit interviews given by President Bush to the Pakistani and Indian media were intended to create a positive environment for his arrival, while his talk at the Asia Society probably was a clearer picture of actual US policy towards this region. There was little new in the Asia Society speech on February 22, because the prime focus was on the strategic partnership the US perceives with India and the multiple commonalities that Bush sees between the US and India. Interestingly, his lack of historical recall was also revealed when he stated that the US had not "always enjoyed close relations with Pakistan and India" because in the past "the Cold War and regional tensions kept us apart …" Clearly, he forgot that Pakistan at least perceived itself as being a close ally of the US during the Cold War! But perhaps that was merely a reflection of the dominance of India in his mind and on his South Asian tour itself.

Bush sees India as a partner in pushing forward US global policy goals -- from free trade to democracy to energy and so on. Bush also reiterated the US position on India's nuclear programme when he declared that the US will address the "need to bring India's nuclear power programme under international norms and safeguards." Obviously, the US has already delinked this programme from India's military programme and accepted the latter without any curtailment or safeguards being required.

In contrast, in the context of Pakistan, Bush saw us primarily as "a key ally in the war on terror". Beyond that, there was no extensive strategic partnership that was outlined. Instead, the Pakistan part of his Asia Society speech was focused more on Pakistan's internal dynamics, including the democracy issue and education. US intent once again focuses on restructuring our polity -– while the Indian polity, with all its abuses and shortcomings, is of no concern to the US.

It was on Kashmir that President Bush gave cause for a premature euphoria in Pakistan and a massive display of self-censorship in the Indian media. At the Asia Society, President Bush only declared that he would encourage the leadership of Pakistan and India to address this "important issue. America supports a resolution in Kashmir that is acceptable to both sides." However, in the interview with the Pakistani media he recalled that he had referred to "both sides" but he said the language should be "all sides" because he recognised that a solution "must be acceptable to India, Pakistan and those living in Kashmir." Quite rightly, taken by itself, this remark was welcomed in Pakistan because it seemed to imply that the US was not pushing simply for a status quo as the solution.

In his opening remarks to the Indian media, he went even further and stated: "I do want to make something clear in the speech I gave today (to Asia Society). I said that -- as to the Kashmir interest -- issue, America supports a solution that is acceptable to all sides. As you might recall in my remarks, I said 'to both sides'. I would like the record to be so that the world hears me say, 'all sides'. I fully understand that the deal has to be acceptable to the Indians, Paks, as well as the citizens of Kashmir…"

The Indian media simply left this quote out but the White House put out an official text! Yet, Pakistan should not be too delighted with this statement because it also reflects the derogatory way in which Bush perceives Pakistanis in his reference to "Paks". While the US media has been abusive of President Musharraf, including referring to him as "meretricious", one does not expect the leader of one sovereign state referring to a whole nation by a generally-recognised term of abuse. Also, when Bush uses the word "citizen" in the context of Kashmir, it implies an independent sovereign status for Kashmir. What could he possibly have been implying?

So, what is the real US position on Kashmir? Is it contained in the Asia Society Bush remarks; or the reference to Kashmir in his interview to the Pakistani media; or the censored opening remark made to the Indian media? While Pakistanis immediately began welcoming the Bush remarks, it may be more prudent to wait and see what actually transpires during the course of the Bush visits to Pakistan and India -- and, it seems, Afghanistan. After all, in his interview with India's Doordarshan, in response to a question on the so-called "terrorist training camps and training infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied (sic) Kashmir", Bush declared that "on my trip to Pakistan, I will, of course, talk about the terrorist activities, the need to dismantle terrorist training camps…"

Therefore, let us be more contained in our enthusiasm of the Bush visit -– especially when we recall what happened to our self-respect and dignity when Clinton visited as President. There are also some critical issues for Pakistan in the context of the US. Two of the most important, strategically, are respect for Pakistan's sovereignty in the ongoing war on terror and the threat to Pakistan's strategic stability posed by the Indo-US defence and nuclear cooperation deals. The first requires a clear and unconditional commitment by the US -- without which there can be no concept of any substantive cooperation let alone partnership. We are a strong state; let us behave like one.

The second issue requires making the Bush Administration understand, in as simple and clear-cut a language as possible, that their military and nuclear deals with India -– and their so-called de-hyphenation in their Pakistan and India relationships -– threaten the nuclear stability of South Asia as well as challenging Pakistan's self-imposed nuclear restraint and minimum nuclear deterrence. Unless the US intent is to deliberately destabilise this region, their Missile Defence cooperation with India and their acceptance of India's military nuclear programme have a direct negative fallout on Pakistan's security parameters. That is why, unless there is some similar balancing agreements with Pakistan, US interests in the region will conflict with Pakistan's strategic compulsions. The wheat and soya bean approach towards Pakistan while military hardware and technology flow to India cannot be thrust on us anymore. And if India's civil nuclear programme is delinked from its military -– in clear violation of the NPT -– then our programme has to be dealt within a similar fashion. That does not mean we need civil nuclear energy from the US, given that China is a far more reliable option, but we do need to have a non-discriminatory US nuclear policy for this region.

Unless we can get a positive response in terms of these two vital interests, we must accept the issue-specific limitations of the Pakistan-US cooperation and institute more equitable quid pro quos in this framework. As for Kashmir, the strength of the Kashmiris and the righteousness of their cause will see them through and it is our support that must be unflinching because US statements may simply remain just that.

Pak-US relations: no room for illusions
 

[SIZE="3"][B]Pak-US relations: no room for illusions[/B][/SIZE]
Shireen M Mazari


President Bush's visit to South Asia was all one expected it to be, although the level of intimacy he achieved with India went far beyond expectations. In Pakistan, a lot of time was devoted to a visit that in the end produced little of long-term strategic value for the country -- no matter what spin one puts on it. But why do we always have expectations from the US when they consistently make it clear that these will be refuted. In the present context, the most painful example was the nuclear issue. Despite consistent statements from US officialdom -- right from the top down -- that Pakistan could never be treated to a deal similar to the Indo-US nuclear deal, we were being told by various utterances from Scherezade Hotel that we would be demanding such a deal and it could actually happen. A delusional air surely hangs heavy in various corridors here!

Of course, the US arguments for sustaining this differential treatment on the nuclear issue do not hold in any rational discussion given India's formal nuclear cooperation with Iran and the Saddam regime as well as its scientists' work in Iranian facilities, but then rationality has never been a strong point of US policies in this region. In any case, President Bush tried to put the delinking of India's nuclear status from that of Pakistan's in as polite a form as he could muster: As he put it, "Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and different histories. So as we proceed forward, our strategy will take in effect those well-known differences". Apart from the fact that he conveniently forgot that the two countries histories are also interlinked, he was right in stating that our nuclear histories are different because India broke the nuclear taboo in this region and it is India that has an extensive nuclear agenda as well as a questionable record in terms of nuclear cooperation officially with regimes like the Saddam regime! So is India being rewarded for its nuclear ambitions and past shenanigans?

Even more galling from the Pakistani standpoint, even on investment and market access opportunities, nothing was formalized. At the end of the day there were many promises and a commitment to a strategic dialogue at mid-level seniority, but nothing concrete. There can be no delusions as to where Pakistan stands with the US: We have an issue-specific strategic cooperation on the issue of terrorism. Beyond that, the US seeks an intrusive role in our domestic polity -- be it education or our political structures. Much has already been written on the Bush visit to Pakistan but there is nothing new or substantive for Pakistan that one can discuss. The only substantive agreement was the Declaration on Principles relating to the Integrated Cargo/Container Control Programme (IC3), which is part of the anti-WMD and anti-terror agenda of the US. Even the issue of US forces violating Pakistan's sovereignty was ignored in terms of an expression of regret, let alone an apology, despite the fact that President Bush focused primarily on the "war on terror". Even the Bush body language in Islamabad was in marked contrast to the gushing and euphoric body language we saw in India. But why was anyone expecting anymore?

On Kashmir, where many Pakistanis went into a state of heady expectations after the Bush remarks to the Indian media prior to his visit, Bush clearly reversed into the traditional US posturing by the time he arrived in Pakistan from India. So on that count, too, it was clear that the US was not prepared to so much as put India in an even mildly irritable mood. Thankfully, President Musharraf also sought only US "facilitation" rather than mediation -- the latter portending dire results for Pakistan in the face of the new Indo-US relationship.

Far more important, especially in the long term, is the Indo-US nuclear deal. While the US talks of declining its relationship with India from its relationship with Pakistan, this delinkage in the nuclear field is going to have serious repercussions for Pakistan, especially when seen in the broader context of the US-India military pact with its missile defence component. In fact, the single most critical factor to come from the Bush visit is the Indo-US nuclear deal -- which was preceded by a nuclear agreement between France and India.

Effectively, the US has killed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). After all, any nuclear assistance to India, even in the civilian field, directly contravenes the NPT. Such assistance also contravenes the US Non-Proliferation Act, but the US can alter that. However, it cannot alter the NPT unilaterally so it has simply decided to kill it in a most brazen fashion. The global non-proliferation agenda is dead as a result of US unilateralism and total disregard for international treaties. Also, by allowing India a delinkage between its military and civilian facilities -- with India deciding which is which -- the US has accepted India de facto into the nuclear club. Pakistan remains outside and can now be targeted in the future on its nuclear programme. Not that we cannot hold our own -- but it will be a source of future unwarranted threat/political pressure.

To make its rejection of the NPT even starker, the US has also given out its decision to retain its nuclear arsenal and to bolster it further -- thereby writing off Article 6 of the NPT. It is in this context that the US and Britain conducted a joint subcritical nuclear experiment (February 23), Krakatau, at the Nevada test site. This has been followed by a statement from Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration declaring that "the United States will, for the foreseeable future, need to retain both nuclear forces and the capabilities to sustain and modernise those forces".

Nor is the Indo-US nuclear deal and the US formal abandonment of disarmament significant only for Pakistan. There will be consequences in terms of how the US now challenges Iran's nuclear programme. After all, having laid the NPT to rest, how can there be any rationalisation of taking the Iran nuclear issue to the UNSC? Also, unless the IAEA critiques the Indo-US nuclear deal, how can it further the goals of non-proliferation? Or is there now going to be a formal acceptance of the discriminatory approach to non-proliferation where only certain states' will be targeted for their WMD programmes, while everyone else can continue to develop their WMD totally unchecked. After all, that is the signal that has been given to India in terms of its fissile material and nuclear weapons development. If one contrasts the manner in which the US is dealing with North Korea, where dialogue is being sought to resolve the nuclear issue, and Iran, one can make a valid assumption that it is the programmes of Muslim states that will be targeted in the future.

In hindsight, Pakistan should have taken note of the Bush reference to its nationals as "Paks" in his opening statement to the Indian media in Washington. That would have better prepared many in Islamabad for the Bush visit. It would certainly have removed all delusional notions.

Ever more farcical
 

Shireen M Mazari

Post-9/11 one has had to witness a strange decline of national self-confidence, despite our innate national strengths, to a level where we are now being subjected to all manner of abuse, by all and sundry. For instance, despite our unstinting support in the war on terrorism, the nation had to face an outright insult by President Bush when he declared that the purpose of his visit was to see whether President was "as serious" on the war against terror as he had been in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Nor was that all. Mr Bush also declared that he wanted to see "fair, free and honest" elections in Pakistan in 2007.

While one can concede to the "fair" and "free" -- although coming practically in the form of a command did nothing to bolster the issue -- what did Bush mean by the use of the term "honest". Was he remembering his own deceit in Florida which led to his first electoral victory, or was he casting yet another aspersion on our leadership? In any event, despite the cricket, and my admiration for the young bowler who defeated Mr Bush at the batting crease, Mr Bush followed true to Clinton's form even though the admonitions may have been less aggressive at first glance.

The US interaction has become ever more farcical. Following the Bush visit, we have now had to hear more absurdities from representatives of the US Administration -- this time in the form of the visit to Islamabad by US Secretary of Energy, Samuel Bodman. While we still continue with our dream of getting US nuclear cooperation similar to what has been promised to India, the US once again has sent a clear message that that will not be the case. As Bodman stated: "Let me make it clear to you that nuclear energy is not part of our agenda." This, despite the very rational Pakistani proposal of safeguarded nuclear parks for energy generation.

So what is part of the US energy agenda for Pakistan? After seeing the text of Bodman's press conference, clearly the primary agenda item is to undermine the Iran gas pipeline project and push us towards gas projects "with Turkmenistan or Qatar." In addition, we have been told we must meet our requirements of energy from coal and solar power! Given our technical capabilities in the nuclear field and the support of China, under IAEA safeguards, in the field of nuclear power generation, there is little to be gained from pursuing the energy dialogue with the US.

But that would be a strong, nationalist message being sent to the US, and we seem to have been reduced to a state of uncertainty psychologically in terms of our own strengths. So many dollars will be wasted in sending teams to continue a fairly meaningless energy dialogue in Washington which will only increase the pressure for abandonment of the Iran pipeline project. Despite no technical or material help in the nuclear field, Bodman has declared that the US "will also send a delegation of scientists to Pakistan". One really needs to know what the purpose would be for such a visit.

Ironically, the US insistence that civil nuclear assistance is not for Pakistan comes at a time when more revelations are being made about India's proliferation deals. We already know, although the US Administration has chosen to turn a blind eye to this reality that India has had nuclear deals with Iran and the Saddam regime and that Indian nuclear scientists worked in both these countries. Now a former UN weapons inspector, David Albright, who heads the Institute for Science and International Security has revealed how India circumvented other countries' export controls and leaked sensitive technology in order to procure materials for its nuclear programme. How long will the US State Department deny India's faulty proliferation record?

Interestingly, for Pakistan even the promised US investment is not going to be forthcoming. That is the other message Bodman has brought in the wake of the Bush visit. As Bodman put it: "There is a potential security issue in Balochistan and unless there is a substantial reduction in that risk, it is hard to think that there would be any substantive American investment there."

Of course, given that India is one source of the security problems in Balochistan, perhaps the US could talk to its strategic partner to desist from aiding terrorism in that part of Pakistan. More critically, we should now realise how critical our economic cooperation with China is becoming for the future and give it topmost priority in terms of investment opportunities and joint production ventures.

So at the end of the day, clearly given the US intent vis-a-vis Pakistan in terms of security and economic investment, the so-called joint statement signed during the Bush visit to Islamabad, to launch the Pakistan-US "Strategic Partnership" has been reduced to a farce with the US simply telling us what we should and should not do -- and what it will and will not do with us. Basically, they want us to fight the anti-terrorist war along the international border with Afghanistan because they are increasingly unable to control the situation within that country despite all the high tech military arsenal and despite the highly equipped US soldiers.

But the Afghan leaders are also getting cocky vis-a-vis Pakistan, especially in the wake of the Bush visit. President Karzai, who has only US support to keep him in power, has now made his hostility to Pakistan clear. But he keeps contradicting himself because he wants us to stop "cross border infiltration" but opposes our fencing of the international border. Now we have the totally absurd situation where every puny little Afghan leader feels he can abuse Pakistan ad nauseum as that will garner him local and US support. So we have had the ridiculous statement coming from Sebghatullah Mujaddedi that Pakistan was behind the attack on his person. Given the intricacies of in-fighting amongst all the former Mujahideen leaders, Mujaddedi would be closer to the truth if he looked closer to himself for his enemies. After all, why would Pakistan bother with him?

Like Karzai, whom Pakistan sheltered for many years, Mujaddedi was the first Mujahideen leader to be installed as President after the fall of Najibullah. As a reporter, who witnessed the event recalled, Mujaddedi had to be forced to go to Kabul from Peshawar since he was in a state of total fear. So scared was he that he even feigned a stomach ailment till a doctor was summoned and he was told he was perfectly fit to travel to Kabul!

As for our so-called interference in Afghanistan -– which is what we are constantly being accused of even now -– we can hardly feign complete indifference when we still continue to host Afghan refugees and when we are seeing the Karzai regime allowing India space for low intensity operations within Pakistan. President Musharraf's rejoinder to Karzai's accusations was timely, but this tough stance has to be sustained. It is time to restore a nationalist assertiveness. Else we are in danger of being reduced to an absurd farce as a nation.

[B][U]Our education deficit[/U][/B]

[U]Shireen M Mazari[/U]

It is a strange phenomenon that as the number of private educational institutions in the country has increased; the overall standards of education within the country have declined. The public schools fast-declining standards have been a given for many decades now and much has been written on that count. But scant attention is being paid to the burgeoning industry that private schools have become. Yet these are the institutions that a sizeable chunk of our bureaucracy and other elites are eventually drawn from and that is why we have increasingly poorly educated civil servants -- as reflected in the story published in The News on April 2. It was sad rather than funny.
Despite the increasing fees and competitiveness of private schools, it is not difficult to see the declining educational standards that are rampant across the country -- because schools are the nurseries for our universities. Of course, some will contend that our children's performance in the O and A level examinations has seen a steady increase in A grades; but the picture is fudged because many private school systems, especially, compel their weak students to appear as private candidates so that the school picture is artificially rosy!
One of the problems today is that education has become an extremely lucrative business in Pakistan and therefore all manner of private schools are mushrooming around the country -- with no control or accountability system. Some schools have become school systems, and none are answerable to any authority in the country. Parents often get short shrift if they become interventionist, because there are always students waiting to get into one or the other private school. This is not to say that all schools are bad. There are some excellent schools but these are scarce and are exceptions.
The major issue is one of accountability. No one is accountable either for what is being taught in these schools or for how it is being taught. The owners are the final arbiters and can hire, fire and expel at will with no control from any supervisory body. This issue was raised in the present cabinet by the education minister, but vested interests, especially of the private school systems, raised a major hue and cry and that was the end of the issue. But there are some serious issues involved and the government does need to lay down some basic ground rules.
To begin with, there has to be some supervisory body which includes parents and civil society members to oversee private schools and to receive and examine complaints relating to these schools. After all, the multi-branch schools often have six to ten sections in each grade, and each section has over twenty students with only one teacher. So the slower or quieter children often get neglected -- especially in a class of almost thirty students. That is why there is now a growing menace of excessive homework. The teachers are shifting the burden of teaching on to parents at a time when in many families both parents are working. So eventually the norm of private tuitions has become pervasive and often the schools' own teachers provide tuition to their own students thereby earning extra income.
However, this means the children spend a good two to three hours studying after they come home from a full day at school -- hardly a healthy life for young people who need their leisure hours, especially outdoors. Nor is this the only health hazard that confronts the school child of today -- and I am talking of those children whose parents often struggle to meet the costs of private education in the vain hope that this will provide better opportunities in life to their child.
The other basic hazard is that schools are opening up in all manner of residential houses and their conversion to schools requires no building examinations or minimal standards. With crowded classrooms, and often no fire exits, these schools put the children at risk every day. In addition, a lack of professionalism in the teachers, as well as bad student-teacher ratios, encourages violence in schools often leading to injury. Again schools will rarely accept liability or even responsibility for the results of the growing violence in schools.
Coming to the education imparted, since there are no minimal standards to comply with either in terms of course content or teachers' qualifications, women with time to spare suddenly transform themselves into teachers and are allowed to teach subjects in which they are not specialised -- often having studied them only at school or intermediate level. Then there is a high turnover of teachers' themselves since many are simply whiling away their time either till their husbands get posted elsewhere or they themselves get married. It is not uncommon to find children dealing with at least three new teachers for some subjects every year.
Fee structures are also totally controlled by the owners and there is no supervision so as schools become more popular their fees rise higher and parents are presented with a fait accompli. Also, many private schools pay no heed to the government rule that O level students must take up Urdu, Pakistan Studies and Islamiat; while some are inculcating their own political values on to the young children. In any event, the standard of Pakistan Studies is a serious issue and achieves no purpose. Instead, a proper study of the history of this region and the Pakistan movement would be more useful in secondary schools along with world history -- which is presently a major deficit in our educational system. As for Islamiat -- the O level syllabus is absurd because it has a sectarian bias with children being allowed to choose which sectarian version of the subject to take up in terms of the O level examination. In any case, religious instruction should be part of a child's home environment and not a compulsory secondary school subject -- rather an optional one for anyone wishing to specialise in it later. What should be taught in schools -- that is, the national anthem is often missing altogether from some private schools.
In this environment, the government has to take swift and rational action if we are to overcome our education deficit at the primary and secondary school levels. There is a need to lay down minimal standards for the curricula as well as rationalising it. There is also a need to lay down a minimum pay scale and other facilities and qualifications for teachers. Perhaps most important, there must be supervisory bodies to oversee the functioning of private schools and to take note of complaints from parents. Private schools cannot function in a legal void; hence the need to create laws to regulate and supervise these institutions.
Some of the older and established private schools have their governing boards, but most private schools do not even have these. In any event, with a few exceptions, governing boards are not inclined to be full time watch dogs and an external regulatory authority is needed to ensure that private schools are imparting standardised and quality education, through properly qualified and trained teachers, in safe and properly constructed buildings. The profit motive must be balanced by societal responsibility.

The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad

Asad Ahmad
 

[SIZE="5"][U]A fatal juxtaposition of violence and resignation[/U][/SIZE]

[COLOR="Red"][B]Shireen[/B][/COLOR] [B]M[/B] [COLOR="Red"][B]Mazari[/B][/COLOR]

A strange air of resignation and fatalism seems to have pervaded our society in a most damaging fashion. This is reflected both in our approach towards our external relations and events within the country. Take the devastating terrorist attack on the Eid-i-Milad-un-Nabi congregation at Nishtar Park, Karachi: It should have shocked the national polity into serious introspection. Yet, after the initial shock, the nation went about with life as usual. We seem to have become immunised to the growing violence within our society as we are given a daily account of the killings across the country. It is not just acts of terrorism but the domestic violence that leads to the non-stop media accounts of women being burnt or axed or simply shot dead.
Militarisation of society has become ingrained as violence is seen as an answer to all disagreements amongst ourselves -- no matter how petty the issue. Whether it is rival student groups, or siblings, or spouses or political or religious groups. From the micro to the macro levels of society, we seem to revel in the use of violence. Our language for ourselves is violent; our responses to even the most minor of provocations is violent and, of course, no political or religious gathering can be held without an adequate display of weapons.
The violence is, of course, the means or expression of a growing intolerance for diversity amongst ourselves. Be it the religious or secular extremist, a self-righteousness embodies a lack of tolerance for the other. Our so-called "western liberals" are not prepared to see any good in any form of religious expression or school, while our "religious" pontiffs condemn all opponents as "un-Islamic". The space to coexist is disappearing fast and the rising tide of intolerant self-righteousness will sweep us all in its wave of destruction.
What is the reason for this air of resignation and fatalism? At some level, the ruling elite, of all varieties, must take responsibility at the macro level, at least. Over the decades, their unresponsiveness to the people; their abuse of this wonderful land and its resources; and, their complete lack of commitment to a sense of nationalism, while pushing forward factional and personal interests, has unleashed a similar "looking out for oneself" mindset within the nation.
Elections are the only time that at least some lip service is paid to the wishes of the people but once the votes have been cast, the people become irrelevant. Corruption has become endemic and the "take what you can" mentality is all-pervasive. The irony is that corruption or percentage-taking is not unique to Pakistan. Other countries, which are in the fast lane of development also have these issues but as one Southeast Asian explained, while people take their "cut" they also ensure that the project they are involved in not only gets completed on time, it is done up to the specifications -- so that the nation also benefits.
At the micro level, we see our children being short shrifted in their education with government schools having neither the resources invested in them nor the commitment to produce proper teachers; and private schools seeing themselves more as purely commercial outfits rather than as places where future generations must be nurtured fruitfully. As for the profession of teaching itself, it lost its lustre decades earlier and a teacher now is more an object of derision or ridicule rather than respect and awe.
It is assumed people turn to teaching when they cannot do anything else, or simply to while away time till other things happen. In our homes also we have stopped inculcating this sense of respect for the teaching profession which eventually means that we have stopped respecting the notion of learning. We draw many comparisons between ourselves and other South Asians, but a major difference between Indians, Sri Lankans and ourselves is the passion for learning in the two former nations in the true sense of the word.
Ironically, while intolerance for each other is becoming a hallmark within our society, our fatalism and sense of resignation is making us overly tolerant of abuse from outside. With our larger neighbour India, we are desperately seeking conflict resolution even though it is clear they are more interested in conflict management or the imposition of solutions. The arrogance of the Indian state has been increasing as we have become more accommodating and nothing reflects this more clearly than their offer of the so-called "peace and friendship treaty" which they suggest should leave Kashmir out of its ambit!
Nor are we taking abuse only from the Indians. Mr Bush came here to "check" whether "his friend", President Musharraf was "still serious" about his commitment against terrorism! The sheer cheek! But worse has followed. We had the US Energy Secretary coming to Islamabad and berating us and the State Department's Boucher coming to hold forth on our domestic political situation. Yes, we have our problems but our political elites can surely resolve these without external interventions? In any case, it would have been a little more seemly if our politicians had met with Boucher outside of the US embassy, if they had to discuss the domestic situation.
Our sense of resignation has become so pronounced that we are unable to offer any strong response to the abuse being heaped on us from external forces. Even when the government knows what India and others are up to in Balochistan, we do not become more assertive -- even in our language. When we do object to events abroad which impact us, even then we choose to hurt ourselves through violence against each other rather than rationally defeating the guilty on their own turf and with their own legal weapons. Violent actions against Pakistani business interests and Pakistani people, to protest the blasphemous cartoons published abroad, only made our own people the losers.
Again, while we hold nothing back in the language we use against each other, we have become overly circumspect in responding to external machinations against our nation. Even Mr Karzai, who can barely keep his government's writ in Kabul, has found himself able to hurl accusations at us and make demands on us ad nauseam. That Mushahid Hussain actually broke the circumspect mode on the link between events in Balochistan and Indian activities in Afghanistan, his interview to The News was a welcome surprise, but those directly responsible for foreign and security policy also need to show more spine in their public statements.
We need to overcome our seeming air of defeatism in external dealings because we are not as weak as we seem to be feeling and the problem is in our elite's psyche. At the same time, we need to break out of our intolerant and violent mode within the domestic framework. The earthquake brought out the best in this wonderful nation but why must we wait for catastrophes to show the true spirit of nationhood that still prevails amongst the nation at large. It would be a self-created tragedy to allow the humane spirit, caring and commitment of this wonderful nation, to be buried under the violence of intolerance and the defeatism of an unwarranted fatalism.

The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad
Email: [email]smnews80@hotmail.com[/email]

[FONT="Arial"][SIZE="2"]Questioning NATO's new rationalisation [/SIZE][/FONT]
Shireen M Mazari

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has been seeking new legitimacy and rationality for its existence in a unipolar world. The disintegration of the Soviet Union signalled the end of bipolarity and destroyed any semblance of balance in the system -- with the US emerging as the sole superpower, determined to establish global strategic structures attuned to its policy goals -- and there was and continues to be little room for hostile states in this new design. The tools also altered -- and these altered much before 9/11. For instance, deterrence (reflecting maintenance of the status quo) was gradually being pushed into the background with the advent of the notion of Missile Defence; and the notion of collective security was fast degenerating into a collective defence system for the pursuance of the US strategic agenda -- as reflected in the manner in which UN sanctions were used in the case of Iraq and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.

9/11 merely accentuated these trends, with the US moving towards a new concept of collective action -- through a notion of the "coalition of the willing" which directly challenges the UN's collective security system. In fact, one can identify four major trends that came to the fore with the end of bipolarity and which became more pronounced in the wake of 9/11.

First, the disintegration of the Soviet Union physically altered the Asian map with the creation of a whole set of new states in the Caucasus and Central Asia. These states, with heavy structural and economic dependencies on Russia, created a region of strategic vulnerability, especially since many of them had old historico-political cleavages within them that came to the fore with independence. The war on terrorism, which brought in external military forces into the region, added to the instability of the Central Asian region.

Second, along with the post-bipolar geopolitical change, the dividing regional lines between the various Asian sub-regions -- such as South Asia, West Asia, and Southeast Asia -- also stood dissipated, with the advent of medium range missiles in the arsenals of some of the states of the region. Post 9/11, the parameters dividing South Asia from the neighbouring Asian regions have further weakened -- especially with both Pakistan and India becoming part of the international coalition's war on terrorism and the presence of external military forces not only in Central Asia but also in the Indian Ocean. Drawing the Central and West Asian regions more directly into the South Asian strategic milieu have been the various schemes/proposals for oil and gas pipelines.

Third, and adding to all these regional changes, was the already strategic shift in US policy. The US legitimised state intervention through the pre-emptive doctrine at the economic, military and political -- that is regime change -- levels. A major global theme that is evolving is the notion of "coalitions of the willing" -- which effectively is a direct challenge to the UN system, especially the notion of collective security.

It is in this new milieu that NATO is seeking to re-legitimise itself. After all, NATO was rationalised post-WWII as a collective defence system with the North Atlantic and Europe as its operational milieu. Within this framework, it acquired legitimacy under the UN Charter's Article 51. The context of NATO was regional both in terms of membership and operational milieu. So, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, questions were beginning to be raised about the continuing rationale for NATO.

NATO, however, began seeking a new validity almost immediately with the setting up of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council as a forum for consultations between NATO members, East European states and the former Soviet republics. Since then, NATO has begun to focus more on bringing into its fold the Eastern European states, initially through its Partnership for Peace initiative of 1994, as well as providing a certain, limited access to Russia through the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council set up in 1997.

Despite all these developments and efforts by NATO to find a new relevancy, debate intensified by the time NATO reached fifty (in 1999) about its continuing validity. But to some extent, the sheer weight of its bureaucratic and organisational structures accounts for its continuing survivability. That is why NATO is looking for political rationalisations for its sustenance. In the process it is undergoing a transformation from its original shape and purpose into a wider politico-military institution that seeks to encompass a wide range of agendas -- from peacekeeping to anti-proliferation of WMD to disaster relief.

While NATO may well have been effective in complying with its new multitasking agendas, a shift in its basic collective defence identity to something more encompassing raises some serious issues in terms of the basics of international relations and the laws, norms and principles that govern these relations. To begin with, while the NATO agenda has expanded, its membership remains confined to Europe and the US -- a sort of bridge between the North Atlantic and Europe. So, if it represents collective interests, these are the interests of these two geographical entities. Yet, its theatre of operations on the ground has become increasingly Asian -- a region that has little say in the NATO agenda or functioning. Unless NATO alters its very identity through Asian members, it will by definition be plugging US-European agendas in Asia.

Closer to us in Pakistan, the NATO presence in Afghanistan raises a host of questions including whether this presence is going to be a permanent one? If the answer is yes, then it will raise security concerns for countries like Pakistan, Iran and China because our national interests may not always coincide with US or NATO interests.

Even more troublesome at a basic conceptual level is the idea that NATO is being transformed from a collective defence organisation (Article 5 of the NATO Charter is surely in the context of collective defence?) to a collective security organisation to serve the interests of future "coalitions of the willing". There is no legitimacy for any collective security organisation other than the UN with its universal membership. Will NATO now push itself as a collective security organisation promoting the values of the Atlantic-European community?

Internationally, there is no legitimacy for such an organisation because Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN Charter provides a very clear and limited framework for collective defence organisations. Article 52 (Chapter VII) of the Charter relates to regional arrangements in connection with maintenance of peace and security and talks in terms of these organisations coming into being "as are appropriate for regional action." Also, under Article 53, there can be no action without authorisation of the Security Council except against an enemy state as defined in Article 53:2.

Is NATO going to be an alternative to the UN system of collective security, peacekeeping, and so on -- just as the notion of "coalitions of the willing" is a direct alternative to the UN and its Security Council? If that is the case, then NATO is functioning in a legal and moral void especially given its continuing limitations in terms of membership.

[FONT="Arial"][SIZE="2"] A Brazilian experience [/SIZE][/FONT]
Shireen M Mazari

Visiting Brazil last week was a most wonderful awakening in terms not only of another world which we have chosen not to interact with -- to our state's cost and our civil society's loss. Here is the fifth largest country in the world with a highly developed industrial and educational base and until last year, we were missing out on what can be a most fulfilling interaction. But even more important, Brazil is an all-encompassing experience like no other -- both at the human and intellectual levels.

Brazilians are truly free from the biases and prejudices that confront Pakistanis in the West. There is a warmth and acceptance of diversity because Brazilians are themselves an amalgam of global society. There are of course the Brazilians of European descent and the indigenous folk; but there are also Brazilians of Japanese origin and there are more Brazilians of Lebanese origin than the Lebanese in Lebanon! So, on the streets of Sao Paulo or Rio, it is impossible to tell the locals from the visitors. And the people are all-embracing right from the time you step off the plane. There is a welcoming smile, which I have not witnessed at any immigration desk anywhere.

Even more exciting is the intellectual depth one confronts. After all, it was Latin America that provided the bulk of the intellectual meat for movements of third worldism and underdevelopment. Today, one can find the same intellectual excitement in Brazil. Sao Paulo University was amazing in its development. It produces 2200 PhDs every year and these are quality PhDs not simply churned out, as we in Pakistan, seem to be moving towards presently, for the sake of number crunching.

Incidentally, their government has reduced funding their students for overseas higher education now that the Brazilian universities are competent of offering quality education. That also stops the brain drain and encourages locals to move into what is a highly valued field -- that of education. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned here for us since we seem to continue to ignore our domestic product for foreign faculty hiring (regardless of the quality or relevance) and overseas scholarships so that the local system continues to degenerate unchecked.

Meeting two leading female artists of Brazil was also exciting because they are showing all over the world from the Middle East to Singapore to Taiwan. Their art is innovative but it was sad to see a total lack of information about our equally exciting artists because we have limited our world to the US and Europe. The art galleries showing Brazilian art were striking not only for the variety of art forms but also for the presence of large groups of students of all ages who had been brought there for field trips. Apparently, the local government provides the transport facilities to bring children to the galleries so that they can grow up with this critical cultural exposure.

And that is another remarkable feature of Brazil: The richness of their living culture is such that the all-pervading McDonald culture is not overtly felt -- even though American fast food is very much there. But a Brazilian-ness absorbs you and insulates you from the intrusiveness of Americanisation. It is one of the few places that do not reflect this intrusiveness even though it may be there covertly!

With such richness and a welcoming approach, it is unfortunate that Pakistan has only now begun to wake up to the opportunities Brazil has to offer. As usual, we followed India, which had developed interaction with Brazil decades earlier and which finally was reflected formally in the Brazil-India-South Africa relationship. That has created hurdles for Pakistan especially in terms of accessing the highly developed arms industry of Brazil but inroads have been made and there is a tremendous potential because the Brazilian arms industry, especially in terms of airpower is highly developed. Brazil also makes civil airplanes and PIA is apparently looking to Brazil for the replacement of its rather old Fokker fleet. Let us hope that lures from the West do not undermine the Brazilian option.

Even in terms of other trade opportunities, there are so many areas, which we can tap, once we can see beyond the EU and Washington. For instance, the Brazilians eat rice as a staple and the way they cook it does not require the short grained or sticky variety. In fact, our Basmati rice would find a big market in Brazil once we can get our producers to move in that direction. The Brazilian market, with a fast paced developing economy, is enormous and still offers Pakistan a good entry point. If Shanghai is a pulsating city in Asia, Sao Paulo is no less pulsating in Latin America.

Basically, Latin America is a major part of the world, which we will continue to neglect at our cost. Moreover, it is a hospitable and friendly world with no colonial attitude or big power excess baggage. On many issues, our worldviews coincide, but where they don't, there is an acceptance of diversity. We can learn a lot also from the Brazilian experience, especially in terms of tolerance, education and development. Brazilian nationalism is also all-pervasive and the green, yellow and blue of the flag are everywhere. But the combination is mellow and soothing and the Brazilians do not vary their green. Unfortunately, Pakistan's original green has long been abused so that one is not exactly sure which is our green anymore -- especially since our national carrier has made the Pakistani green almost black (could it be a funeral green?) on its planes.

We actually have a lot in common with the Brazilians but what they have converted into assets, we have failed to do so. Their passion for sports is as ingrained as ours and presently the focus is on the soccer world cup. But the Brazilian footballers have an international following. A sense of nationalism can be felt everywhere in Brazil but their nationalism is not aggressive -- it adds to their warmth and beauty. And beauty is what Brazil is all about -- both of the human variety and of nature.

In fact, Brazil made me wish we could enjoy and project the beauty that is Pakistan. From the mountains to the sea and all that is in-between is so exquisite in Pakistan but, after 58 years, still awaits development. Nationalism has been reduced to a most damaging chauvinism and a positive national pride is diminishing at breakneck speed.

The humane-ness of the ordinary Pakistani has been lost in the bureaucratic machinations and political dialectics of the state. As for the richness of our culture, it has been butchered by cultural mafias and bigots. What we could be and are still not is frustrating and infuriating. To see and experience Brazil was to be chastened and saddened by our self-created inadequacies and our blinkered view of the world. When will our awakening come?

Future Of Terrorism: A Critical Appraisal
 

FUTURE OF TERRORISM: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL
Shireen M Mazari *


With war, in the traditional sense of violent conflict between states, gradually losing validity in terms of state policy - except within the context of self-defence - and with the end of bipolarity, states have been increasingly confronted with non-traditional security issues and threats. In fact, since the end of bipolarity, the traditional notion of security in terms of conventional military threats was expanded to a notion of comprehensive security - which included economic and environmental issues. However, even here, the state was seen as the primary actor. By the mid-nineties, we saw the notion of human security creep into the security paradigm - and this put the individual as a central concern within security strategies. Unfortunately, in many ways, by having an all-inclusive framework, the notion of security as a distinct concept has tended to be undermined. After all, if we are to include health, education and other such welfare issues within a security paradigm, then how do we distinguish the notion of security from other notions such as justice, social welfare and so on?


This is not to say that issues like poverty do not impact security within states as well as between states, but we need to maintain a certain identifiable notion of security within the language of international relations. In that sense then, while there are non-traditional security issues, I would limit these to issues within states and societies, and between states that pose a threat to stability through the use of violent interaction. In other words, when poverty or ethnic differences threaten civil society and state structures, as well as interstate relations, then they enter the realm of security. So, in a sense then, this paper does treat the basic notion of security in terms of absence of violence or a fear of violence. But, it also sees states as merely one set of actors within the overall international security paradigm with non-state actors becoming increasingly critical players both at national and international levels. As for the individual, it is still not clear how relevant human security is within international relations since international cooperation still tends to frame rules that undermine individual well-being in poor and developing states - as shown in the WTO arrangements and the policies of state subsidies/support programmes for agriculture in the EU and the US. So, at the end of the day, it is groups, rather than individuals, that have become important players impacting on intra and inter state relations. And many of these groups have transnational linkages in terms of recruitment and financing. This was highlighted most dramatically with the devastating terrorist attacks against US targets on September 11, 2001, which tended to focus on one growing non-traditional security concern - that of terrorism.


Assessment of the post-9/11 war against Terrorism


Post-9/11, the international war on terrorism was declared, supported by UN resolutions, and since then it has become a priority agenda for almost all member states of the international system. Has the war been successful in containing terrorism? Although one cannot give a definitive answer to this question, especially in terms of long-term assessments, one can answer tentatively, based on the situation prevailing on the ground in terms of acts of terrorism and the fate of the terrorist networks. Within this framework, one can say that, at best, the war on terrorism has reached a stalemate.


While the massive military power of the US, aided by the international community's support for anti-terrorist conventions through the UN, has broken up and scattered the networks of the terrorist organisations; the manner in which the US has led and conducted the war against terror has not only failed in denying political space to the terrorists, it has in fact, created more space for them. In order to examine this assertion, there is a need to also look at, briefly, the conduct of the war against international terrorism by the US.


Having identified Osama bin Laden (OBL) and his Al-Qaeda as the central terrorist enemy, and the Taliban as cohorts in crime for providing sanctuary for Al-Qaeda, the US, supported by the international community, launched the war on terrorism in Afghanistan on October 7, 2001. Massive air power sent OBL and Al-Qaeda on the run and toppled the Taliban government in Kabul with the surviving Taliban leadership also going underground. A massive haul of prisoners resulted and many were taken to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be incarcerated with no trial or POW protection - as required under the Geneva Conventions. As the war in Afghanistan unfolded in the full glare of the international media, the horror of the "Daisy Cutters" and "Bunker Buster" bombs against a hapless Afghan population first began to create space for the terrorists. The killing of POWs at a camp, Qila Jhangi in Afghanistan, and the death by suffocation and shooting of prisoners incarcerated in containers of trucks added to the tales of horror relating to the conduct of the US-led war in Afghanistan. Gradually, in the face of these developments, the horror of 9/11 diluted with a growing sense that the US was now actively targeting Muslims, both abroad and within the US, under the garb of the 'war on terror'. All these factors created space for the terrorists in terms of shelter and even future recruitments. The framing of the terrorist issue within a religious framework - the notion of "Islamic terrorism" - also allowed space to the terrorists on the run.


So the 'war on terror' failed to adopt a basic strategy - that of space denial to the terrorists. After all, the war was an unconventional war with an ill-defined and mobile enemy, so the first goal should have been of military and political space denial, but this was never part of the US strategy. Sheer military power was seen as the counter to the terrorist threat. To make matters worse, the US then dissipated the focus of the war itself on the transnational network of terrorism, by moving into Iraq through an illegal invasion of a sovereign state which had no links to Al-Qaeda or OBL. Bush's invasion of Iraq also added a new dimension to the terrorism issue - that of WMD. The US began its new doctrine of the "axis of evil" and "rogue states" with WMD. That no WMD were found in Iraq has since shown the Iraq invasion for what it was - an effort to enforce regime change and control energy resources.


However, the problem was that the invasion of Iraq, with no legitimation by the UN, allowed the terrorists to expand their operational milieu; and with the US occupation of Iraq, linkages between international terrorism and local groups resisting the invasion became intertwined, with the former feeding on the anger and frustration of the latter. Also, members of the US-led "coalition of the willing" found their nationals and territories being targeted by international terrorists - as in the case of the Madrid bombings. As the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi told La Stampa, in March 2004, "Clearly the fight against terrorists cannot be resolved through force. We should remember that the war in Iraq began a year ago … The results are not good, whether we are talking about Iraq or elsewhere - Istanbul, Moscow and now Madrid." 1


Despite intelligence information to the contrary, President Bush, in his State of the Union address in January 2003 claimed: "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveals that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al-Qaeda." 2 And this claim was persuasive enough to persuade 44% of the US public to believe that some if not all the 9/11 hijackers had been Iraqis and 45% of the public thought Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks.3 Now, however, it has come to be generally accepted that not only did Iraq have no WMD but that Saddam Hussein had no link to Al-Qaeda. Ironically, post-Saddam Iraq is now seeing increasing space for Al-Qaeda acting together with disgruntled elements in Iraq as well as those opposed to the US occupation.


The impact of the Iraq war on terrorist recruitment was admitted to by the CIA Director, Porter Goss, before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in February 2005, when he stated that, "Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-US jihadists … These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism … They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries." 4 According to Goss, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist, who joined Al-Qaeda after the US invasion of Iraq, hoped "to establish a safe haven in Iraq" from where he could operate against Western states and certain Muslim governments.5 And Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency admitted, to the same Senate panel that US "policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment." 6


The massive increase in terrorist counter attacks against American targets finally led the US government to actually abandon the publication of its annual report on international terrorism for the year 2004 which should have come out in early 2005. According to one report, the US government's main terrorism centre concluded that there had been more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985 - the first year covered by its publication entitled, "Patterns of Global Terrorism". 7 Even in 2004, the numbers of incidents for 2003 were undercounted, which led to a revision of the publication in June 2004-two months later. What finally came out was a much higher number of significant terrorist attacks and twice the number of fatalities that had been presented in the original report.8


So, clearly by all accounts, international terrorism has been on the increase in the aftermath of the internationally-declared war against terrorism led by the US - both in terms of intensity and operational milieu. Of course, in his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention in 2004, in New York, Bush painted a picture which attempted to show that the war on terrorism was being won. As he put it: "The government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror; Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders; Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests; Libya is dismantling its weapons programs; the army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom; and more than three-quarters of Al-Qaeda's key members and associates have been detained or killed." 9 At the politico-diplomatic level, there have been a plethora of global and regional conventions and agreements aimed at fighting terrorism, including focusing on the financing of terrorism, as well as a number of UN Security Council Resolutions, including UNSC Resolution 1377 (November 12, 2001) and the earlier UNSC Resolution 7158 (September 28, 2001).


However, on the other side, OBL and his deputy, Dr Ayman al-Zawahiri, as well as Taliban leader Mullah Omar, have neither been captured nor killed. Al-Qaeda seems to have "gone global", and Afghanistan has yet to become truly free. Presently, not only are there foreign forces controlling security, warlords still reign supreme in many regions and President Karzai, despite being elected, has his security controlled by US guards. Additionally, in Afghanistan, linkages between drugs, organised crime and terrorism have increased. As for Iraq, it is seen as under military occupation by the US and its allies and there is an almost daily increase in the intensity of terrorist attacks. In addition, both Asia and Europe have become more vulnerable to acts of terror and the Arab world is highly destabilised.


As for Al-Qaeda, it has become what some have termed a "brand name", having mutated into a "multi-headed hydra" comprising international leaders and local heads.10 Worse still, with no central command or organisation, any group that wishes to come into the limelight selects the Al-Qaeda label or "brand". This ensures publicity which is part of the intent of such groups. New local obscurantist groups have surfaced that have no operational links to OBL and his leadership cadres, but they state an affiliation because this intensifies the context of a specific local act of terror. Using the brand name 'Al-Qaeda' allows them space for recruitment and support. Equally interesting is the fact that many of the born-again obscurantists are not citizens of Muslim states but are part of first and second generation Muslims belonging to European states. As Pepe Escobar points out, members of Al-Qaeda's new elite were "either born in Western Europe - many hold a legitimate European Union passport - or came to the West while still very young and then became radicalised."11


That is why there is a growing perception amongst European states that a more encompassing strategy is needed to fight international terrorism. The EU's Romano Prodi, when he was President of the Commission, argued that the use of military force as the main weapon in the fight against terrorism has not worked - as he put it, "Terrorism is now more powerful than ever before." 12 In March 2004, the EU adopted a wide-ranging counter-terrorism policy in which they recognised that they had to deal with the roots of terrorism which they saw as the "social economic and political problems in the Mediterranean and Middle East countries on which Islam fanaticism has built." 13


So, it becomes clear that, at the very least, there is a stalemate in the war against terrorism and at worse, the terrorist threat seems to be on the increase both in terms of intensity and operational milieu. The causes for this are also clear.


To begin with, failure to deny space to the terrorists and an almost total reliance on military means to deal with the problem of terrorism have been major mistakes. Simply by using heavy weaponry as means of reprisal against suspected states and groups will not end the problem. Asymmetrical warfare, if fought in this traditional manner, is ineffective and costly, and merely aggravates the problem.


Terrorism itself is merely a symptom of deep-seated political and economic problems which is why there has to be a long term multiple-level strategy that includes security measures but also focuses on the root causes of terrorism, which are primarily political. Amongst the recognised causes are unresolved political-territorial disputes affecting Muslim populations - especially the Palestinian problem, Kashmir and Chechnya. A sense of deprivation and injustice creates the necessary space for the terrorists.


Framing the terrorist issue in religious terms is equally counterproductive since terrorism has political roots. Even Al-Qaeda is not proselytising for Islam, so if the IRA's acts of terrorism were not seen as "catholic terrorism" why should Al-Qaeda's terrorist actions be referred to as "Islamic terrorism"?


Additionally, at the tactical level, what is being seen as a continuous abuse of Muslims, Islam, its Prophet (PBUH) and its Holy Book in the US and Europe and parts of the Dominion territories, is increasing the divide between Muslims and the West and this is also creating more space for the obscurantists, by exploiting feelings of hatred and victimisation that have increased amongst Muslims in Europe and the US post-9/11.


Linking issues of WMD, regime change and democracy in Muslim states has also diluted the focus of the war against terrorism.


What Constitutes Terrorism?


Separating perpetrators of pathological violence from those who indulge in political violence, the word "terrorist" - denoting the latter - is a term that has been fastened on political enemies since the time of the French Revolution in 1789. If a political movement, which has used terror as a tactic, succeeds then the label of terrorism disappears - with many political "terrorists" of yesteryears transformed into national or revolutionary leaders, once they have succeeded in their aims! Herein lies the problem of defining terrorism on its merits, in a manner that allows it to be a punishable offence through international treaties. Certain terrorist acts have been isolated and deemed punishable by the international community through international conventions. For example, there are the international conventions on hostage taking and hijacking. But there is, as yet, no comprehensive international convention on terrorism itself, despite the ongoing efforts in the United Nations. Also, special UN committees have continuously condemned acts of international terrorism in principle, but no agreeable definition has been forthcoming. There is still no consensus on how to define terrorism.


This is not to say that acts of violent political terror cannot be identified, nor is such terrorism new to the world scene. A German, Johannes Most pioneered the idea of the letter bomb.14 Since then, many political scientists have sought to define and explain political terrorism. According to one definition, "terrorism involves the intentional use of violence or the threat of violence by the perpetrators against an instrumental target in order to communicate to a primary target a threat of future violence." 15 Interestingly, barring the distinction between instrumental and primary targets and the actual use of violence, the difference between terrorism and nuclear deterrence is very fine!


E.V. Walters, in his work on terrorism, refers to a process of terror, which he says has three dimensions: `the act or threat of violence, the emotional reaction and the social effects.'16 So, three actors are involved - the source or perpetrator of the violence, the victim and the target. The victim perishes and the target reacts to the destruction. Here, there is a distinction between the process of violence on the one hand and, on the other, an act of destruction, which is complete in itself, and not an instrument of anything else. The former - as process - comes within the category of political violence, the latter seems to be closer to the pathological, or what Chalmers Johnson calls the "non-political" terrorism. 17


As long as terror is simply a means directed towards a goal beyond itself, it has to be limited in its dimensions so as to remain a process. Annihilation is not the intent of such terrorism - rather, the intent is to politically and psychologically hurt the enemy. When terror becomes unlimited and crosses the invisible line into irrationality, then it moves on from being a process to simply an end in itself - and then it loses its relevance within the political context. In a similar vein, political scientist Raymond Aron also highlights the distinction between the actual deeds of terrorists and the significance given to these acts by observers remote from the scene.18 This then brings up the issue of a third target relevant to the act of political terror - the international audience and the international victim. Aron feels that a violent act can be categorised as terrorism if the psychological effects are out of proportion to its purely physical result. However, this leaves the categorisation primarily at a subjective level, of measuring the psychological impact and how far it is "out of proportion."


It is the subjectivity brought to bear on the issue of terrorism that has prevented the international community from formulating an all-encompassing definition of terrorism. Despite the intensity of activities post-9/11 to create laws and conventions against terrorism at the global, regional and national levels, the international community has still not evolved any acceptable definition of what constitutes terrorism. International conventions have found it easier to sidestep the issue, while many of the prevailing conventions that deal with specific acts of terrorism, like the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages and the OIC's Convention on Combating Terrorism, focus on making a distinction between terrorism and struggles for self determination against colonial rule, alien occupation and racist regimes.19


Also, the 1973 UN General Assembly Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on International Terrorism makes a similar exemption, and this is further backed up by Article 7 of the General Assembly's 1974 Definition of Aggression, which states:


"Nothing in this definition, and in particular Article 3 20 could in any way prejudice the right of self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination; or the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and seek and receive support …"


Beyond the issue of self-determination, there is also the issue of state terrorism. Many states perpetrate violence against the people of other states to send a message to their governments to fall in line "or else." An all-encompassing definition of terrorism would bring the perpetrators of such violence within the ambit of penalties for such acts. When the state in question is a major or even a super power, then the issue will arise as to who will ensure that an act of terror by that state is punished? Also, if deterrence between states fails and the threatened action is undertaken, does that also become an act of terror - especially if the action threatened is against civil society? And what of cases where, in a state of war, the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions are ignored, and massacres and revenge killings become the order of the day? It is all these issues, and the reluctance of states to give up their final right to violence, that has made it almost impossible to evolve an all-encompassing definition of terrorism.


Therefore, within the UN the focus is becoming increasingly on a way to move beyond this problem - indeed to sidestep the issue of definition and simply deal with the specifics of the acts of terrorism and their penalties. The draft (originally floated by India) of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism, that continues to be under consideration in the UN, seeks to do this by simply ignoring the issue of defining terrorism specifically. Instead, it just links terrorism to any person who commits an offence, "unlawfully and intentionally" which is intended to cause either "death or serious bodily injury to any person" or "serious damage to a State or government facility, a public transportation system, communication system…" 21 Another major failing of this draft is that it totally ignores the exemption, internationally recognised, for struggles of self-determination - despite the fact that self-determination is a peremptory international norm.22


Muslim states have also pointed out that the preamble of this Draft Convention contains no reference to the underlying causes of terrorism and while there is a reference to "State-sponsored terrorism", there is no mention of "State terrorism". In any event, so far the Draft remains in the process of negotiations.


However, one major shortcoming in the way the international community is looking at the issue of terrorism is to focus on what is seen as "international terrorism". Yet "international terrorism" is simply one form of the trend in terrorism, and one can identify at least two other important trends. One of the problems confronting the war on terrorism is that none of the three trends function totally independently of the others.


I: International terrorism can also be seen as transnational terrorism, with groups having linkages across national borders and subscribing to an international agenda. Included in this are members and sympathisers of Al-Qaeda and some of the Taliban leadership. Al-Qaeda remnants are thought to be present in the tribal belt of Pakistan, but a number of acts of terror in India also are now being linked to Al-Qaeda. Also, Muslim groups fighting in Chechnya and Uzbekistan are also being lumped with Al-Qaeda - at least those thought to be sheltering along the Pakistan-Afghan border. Since the US-sanctioned 'jehad' against the Soviets in Afghanistan, various Muslim groups seeking political change through violent means are thought to have created linkages with each other since the US recruited Muslim fighters from across the Muslim world to fight in Afghanistan.


Within this mode of terrorism, the US policies in Afghanistan and Iraq are creating breeding grounds for supporters and sympathisers of these groups who are increasingly seen to be challenging US oppression towards Muslims. At the same time, in states like Pakistan, there is a proactive policy to isolate them from their support base. It is this policy, which has led the Pakistan Army to enter the tribal belt of the country for the first time since Independence. However, after sending a strong military message to the tribals in the form of military action, the military has realised the need to adopt a more fruitful policy of pacification through reward and punishment so that the locals hand over the foreigners in their midst. The problem has, however, been aggravated on three counts: one, the local hospitality tradition of the tribes whereby they give sanctuary to any one seeking it; two, many of the foreigners have been in the area since the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan and have married into local families; and, three, the violations by US forces of Pakistan's sovereignty through military action on Pakistani territory. This creates a political issue domestically for the Pakistan government and undermines the credibility of the military in the operational area.


II: The second trend in terms of terrorism is the local, sub-national extremist groups that are prevalent across many regions. In Pakistan, for example, there has been the problem of sectarian terrorism and the state had begun outlawing many groups linked to this, much before September 11, 2001. However, with a focus on transnational extremist groups, the sectarian problem has tended to take second place with the result that it has become exacerbated once again. Also, Al-Qaeda has fed into this problem directly by creating linkages between itself and some of the extremist Sunni groups. The same has happened in southeast Asia in countries like Indonesia where local terrorist groups have gained a new revival with the Al-Qaeda label. In Iraq also, one is seeing the linkages between local Iraqi resistance and Al-Qaeda.


One of the most violent sub-national, separatist insurgencies was the LTTE movement of the Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka. Initially, the Tamils got support from India, but over the years India suffered the backlash of this - culminating in the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. While a peace process brokered by the Norwegian government gave some hope that this over 18 years conflict would finally be resolved, at present uncertainty prevails. Over 64,000 civilians, security force personnel, and LTTE cadres have died so far in this conflict - which saw the emergence of suicide bombers as an integral part of the Tamil strategy.


III: The third terrorist trend is that of state terrorism. This has become more acute in the post-9/11 period with the US declaring its pre-emptive doctrine, invading Iraq without a UN resolution and lending support to the Sharon policy of political assassinations. Strong regional powers like India have also claimed for themselves the right of pre-emption. Even before 9/11, the issue of state terrorism dominated the discourse on Palestine and Kashmir. The international community has shown no inclination to deal with this aspect of global terrorism. Yet one of the major factors aggravating the terrorist threat across the globe is the linkage between these three broad trends.


Future Terrorist Threats


It is already becoming clear that terrorism is going to be the new unconventional war to confront the international community. The present effort to deal with terrorism through military means and the curtailment of domestic political liberties has proven to be inadequate - especially in denying political space to the terrorists. Part of the problem is that these policies have been accompanied by aggressive external policies of the US and its allies, especially towards the Islamic World. Furthermore, perceptions within the Islamic World of being targeted by the West have also been growing - especially as a result of developments in Europe and the fallout of the US occupation of Iraq. It is not only at the politico-military level that the civil societies of the Muslim World are sensing a growing targeting of themselves and their religion. At the socio-cultural level also, especially within the migrant communities of Western Europe, there is a growing cleavage between the Muslim immigrants and the indigenous populations. Polarisation is becoming more evident in European states with large Muslim migrant populations. Intolerance on the part of many of the right-wing European establishments further aggravates the situation as has been reflected in the blasphemous cartoons' issue that came into being in late 2005 and gained momentum since January 2006.


Within this milieu, the extremists find ready recruits, so one is bound to see the political space of what could be future terrorists increasing, especially in the West itself. As has already been seen, the new Muslim radicals are neither primarily from the Muslim World nor are they Madrassah educated. Instead, as the July 2005 London bombings showed, the terrorists were British Muslims. Although efforts have been made to attribute their terrorist leanings to their brief stay in Pakistan, the fact is that they were marginalised within their own British societies. Even the 9/11 terrorists were Western educated. So, for the future, one will see a growing threat of terrorism coming form within Western societies as their migrant communities feel targeted and/or marginalised. The issue is primarily politico-social and requires an effort to focus on root causes so that potential terrorists never realise that potential and, instead, are coopted into the mainstream. This means that the war on terrorism has to have a new direction and emphasis.


In fact, a more holistic approach is required to deal with the terrorist threat which is going to be with us for the future because of the ease with which destruction can be caused, especially in modern, technologically-advanced societies. In this context, it serves no purpose to give religious labels to what are essentially acts of political terror. There is no "Islamic terrorism" just as there was no "Catholic" or "Christian terrorism" when the IRA and Ulster Unionists were carrying out their violent struggles and before the IRA became an accepted political dialogue partner of the British state. After all, Al-Qaeda is not proselytising for Islam. However irrational, Al-Qaeda has a political agenda which has expanded from getting the US out of Arab lands to a wider conflict with the US. So, if the Vatican was not held responsible for the excesses of the IRA in Northern Ireland, then Islam cannot be held responsible for the actions of Muslims using violence to achieve their political goals. In fact, by bringing in Islam into the equation of terrorism, the West itself is merely creating potential new support sources for these groups amongst Muslim communities, just as the UK did for the Catholics of the US - many of Irish descent - who lined up to provide assistance to the IRA for many decades.


The framing of what are basically political struggles, in religious terms has hardly helped in dealing with the problems in terms of seeking a sustainable solution. It may make demonisation of the enemy easier, but it will hardly create the environment for conflict resolution. And the argument that the "Islamic" terrorists cannot be dealt with rationally because they glorify martyrdom makes no sense, because one of the largest number of suicide bombings have been by Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka, who had committed massive acts of violence against innocent civilians and had been put on the list of terrorist organisations by many countries across the globe.


Nor does it help understand the issue of terrorism better by talking in terms of a "Clash of Civilisations" in terms of an "Islam" versus the rest context. Huntington's emotive "Clash of Civilizations" thesis added the intellectual force for this mind-set and 9/11 has provided the final "proof" of this thesis! But the lines were drawn much earlier on. As Sandra Mackey wrote in 1996:


"The very term 'Islamic fundamentalism' was given common coinage at the zenith of the Iranian revolution. Since then it has grabbed and held an American public emotionally scarred by military casualties and civilian hostages in Lebanon; violence inflicted against Westerners by Islamic militants in Algeria and Egypt; fear engendered by the shadowy group that detonated a bomb in New York's World Trade Center; and anger roused by the endless slogans of Islamic zealots that damn the West. Regardless of the range of grievances and geography of militant Islamic groups, the American mind sees the Islamic Republic of Iran as the fount of Islamic extremism." 23


There is a basic flaw in Huntington's thesis in that it creates artificial monoliths of an Islamic civilisation, a Western civilisation and so on. Facts on the ground reveal the contrary. For instance, there is a diversity amongst the Western and Christian worlds. Just as Christian states come in many cultural and geographical dimensions - ranging from Latin America to Europe to Asia - so do Western "secular" democracies. There is a whole political framework now being accepted that Islam has replaced Communism as the major threat to "Western" civilisation - especially the underlying concept of "secularism" on which this civilisation supposedly rests. Yet the fact of the matter is that this is nothing more than a dangerous myth. So-called Western secularism is simply a reflection of Christian values. 24


However, the intent in this paper is not to show the long list of abuse of Muslims at different levels in the international system today. The point is that, on the ground it is Muslims who are under threat because of their religion. But coming to the point of this so-called "Clash of Civilisations" focusing on Islam. There really is no one monolithic "Islamic" civilisation. Islam binds many diverse civilisations together through a religious bond. However, beyond that, which "Islamic" civilisation is in clash with the West? After all, Islam ranges from North Africa to East Asia and there is even an OIC member in Latin America - Surinam. Now the civilisation of Muslim Nigeria is totally diverse from the civilisation of Pakistan in Southwest Asia or Malaysia further to the East. The Arab world's cultural and historical legacies, which build its civilisational identity, are diverse from the Iranian civilisation and the Turkish civilisation … and so on. So to talk of a clash of the West with an "Islamic" civilisation makes absolutely no sense. In other words, there are many socio-political civilisations that have embraced Islam as a religion in the same way as other equally different civilisations have embraced Christianity. Even Confucianism cannot be confined to China, given the Confucian influence across East Asia. Perhaps the closest that one can talk of monolithic religio-political civilisations are the Hindu and Zionist civilisations - and both have shown an extremism and intolerance of diversities and other religious groupings.


The Linkage between Globalisation and Terrorism


A major source of an increasing terrorist threat is the globalisation that is taking place today. Globalisation has increased the ability of obscure groups to use violence and gain international focus. Communications have allowed groups to link up and global transfer of funds has allowed the funding of groups in one part of the world by groups in other parts in a matter of hours or days. So just as the international community has come together to share information and strategies to deal with the terrorist problem, extremist groups and fringe elements in different societies have developed the ability to support each other and share information and finances.


Beyond this, globalisation itself is a growing source of terrorism, especially by disgruntled elements of different types in differing societies. To understand the impact of globalisation, one needs to be clear what one means by the term itself. For the purposes of this paper, Stanley Hoffman's typology of "globalisation" is used, in order to try and understand what the West means by globalisation, and to examine what, if any, is the linkage between this phenomenon and Islamism. Stanley Hoffmann has identified three types of globalisation: economic, cultural and political. 25


The first - economic globalisation - is a reality in terms of economic interdependence across nations, which is defined by certain rules of the game created by the powerful, but which are enshrined in international institutional frameworks such as the IMF, the IBRD (World Bank) and now the WTO - with other international norms flowing from these agreements. Here the clash, as is being witnessed increasingly, is between the haves and have-nots of the world. It is the economic disparities created by economic globalisation that has created great inequalities between and within states, so that the clash has come from those who have suffered deprivation and injustice as a result of the policies and demands of international economics.


Hoffmann's second category - cultural globalisation - is seen as originating from technological and economic globalisation which has led to the efforts to uniformalise the world civil societies by selling what is basically an American-dominated Western culture as a universal culture - what many refer to as the "McDonaldisation" of the world. So, the conflict here comes from those wishing to retain global diversity and local cultures. The clash here again comes from those seeking to resist being overwhelmed by the forces of global economics and "global" culture. Hence one has seen a resurgence of local cultures and languages and a condemnation of efforts at global uniformity as being one more attempt to assert American hegemony.


Which brings one to the third Hoffmann category - that of political globalisation. This is reflected in the prevalence of one sole superpower - in politico-military terms - that is the US. Post-9/11, this aspect of globalisation has come to dominate, with the US embracing economic issues also within a politico-military framework. Also, with the US moving towards increasingly unilateralist interventionism in the world, international norms and treaties created over the decades stand threatened. In many ways, the post-9/11 trend towards political globalisation within the US unilateralist mode will threaten economic and cultural globalisation - since it will push a global agenda through national power rather than international cooperation.


In all three Hoffman typologies, one can find a link between globalisation and terrorism. To begin with, there is now very clearly the growth of transnational terrorism whereby different groups across the globe interact and learn from each other - as well as cooperating with each other. Just as states and civil societies have become more interlinked, so have marginalised groups with political agendas who feel left out of the mainstream processes; or who have reductionist agendas in the era of globalisation. Nor are these links new - they have been there for decades, with the Red Brigade in Europe having their liaison with the PLO and so on. Nor was religion the binding force. Rather, it was a common perception of struggling against the Establishment and against perceived injustices - all political goals.


So, as the mainstream international system has become more globalised, so has terrorism - especially with the advent of the internet and global electronic media through satellite. This is now the age of "netwar", a term used by Bruce Hoffman to describe, "an emerging mode of conflict and crime at societal levels, involving measures short of traditional war, in which the protagonists use network forms of organisation and related doctrines, strategies, and technologies attuned to the information age." 26 Also, with the technical barriers broken to create global access, the weapon of the weak has become transnational - from the protests that accompany meetings of the powerful states and institutions like the IMF and IBRD, to the most extreme form that led to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.


Also, the marginalisation of many developing states and groups within developed states as a result of the three strains of globalisation, identified above, have created more dissensions in civil societies and states across the globe. Terrorism has been one of the fallouts - as a weapon of the weak. The North-South divide has been further aggravated by global economic developments with the countries of the South being polarised between the haves and have-nots divide within their own countries as well as the developed-underdeveloped global divide. From the bread riots of 1976 in Egypt to the anti-IMF riots across continents inhabited by developing states, survival is the major issue for the man in the street. To make matters worse, people in these states see their natural resources being controlled by outside forces and with the state losing control over critical decisions. Nowhere is this clearer than over strategic resources like oil.


Even in developed states, there are groups who feel marginalised and out of the mainstream because they are no longer in control of their economic destinies. Hence the growth of radical, anti-global trends and ideologies both in the West and in the under-developed world. Radicalism of multiple types is growing as globalisation continues in the direction it is going. This radicalism is not particularly "Islamic" in nature - it finds its expression in neo-Nazi movements in the West, in the rise of fundamentalist forces in countries like India and in Muslim states, turning to religion becomes the norm because religion still continues to play an important part in the lives of people in this part of the world. When that religion is perceived as being abused by groups in states where the governments are not prepared to take legal action against the guilty, then frustration and anger spills over into violence and this rages across national borders.


Add to this the Western control of global communications and the economic anger and frustration is given a cultural expression through the rejection of the trend towards trying to compel global cultural expression in Western terms. When events are also interpreted through a particular prism in terms of news and current affairs language then the dialectical pulls in non-Western societies become further exacerbated.


Finally, the political-military globalisation which in effect is a new type of imperialism, is now reflected most clearly in the new US National Security Strategy that seeks to justify a military preemptive unilateralism on the part of the US across the globe. Mr. Bush proclaimed, at West Point on June 1, 2002, "Our Nation's cause has always been larger than our Nation's defense", reflecting clearly a "no-bounds" global agenda.


What has further aggravated the terrorist threat today is that terrorism has also become the instrument of the powerful states - from the US to Israel to India. And all acts of terror - barring pathological violence -have a political framework not a religious, proselytising one.


All in all, in the future the problem of terrorism is going to become aggravated because of the growing political space still being available to terrorists. Globalisation has also created many levels of the threat with linkages amongst these levels.


What can be done to Counter the Multifaceted Terrorist Threat


Simply barricading oneself against the terrorist threat will not work. In other words, for the developed states to think they can barricade themselves from the rest of the world is unrealistic. Globalisation, both economic and in terms of culture and ideas, is increasing movement between goods and people so fundamental liberties need to be maintained and these make all societies more vulnerable. That is why there is a need to focus on the root causes of terrorism, not simply the symptoms. In this, political dialogue and peaceful resolution of conflicts become essential tools with which to fight terrorism.


Rami Khouri has rightly pointed out that the world needs to accept "three important but uncomfortable facts" if it wants to achieve substantive results against terrorism and not just "feel-good revenge." 27


First, the Arab-Asian world, primarily Islamic, is the "heartland and major wellspring of the spectacular global terror attacks of recent years." That is why the reasons for this have to be tacked intelligently. According to Khouri, "The most important and recurring historical root cause of terror in, and from, the Arab-Asian region is the home-grown sense of indignity, humiliation, denial and degradation that has plagued many of (the) young men and women." Because the governments and societies of the region have been unable to come to grips with this, space has been allowed to states like Israel, the US and Britain to send in their armies to deal with the misperceived problems and disastrously faulty analyses.28


Second, Khouri points out that terrorism is a global phenomenon that also emanates from non-Islamic regions in the world which are not linked to Arab or the Islamic Middle East. That is why local environments and causes have to be understood, rather than linking everything to "a single, global Islamic militant ideology that is fuelled by hatred for America." There are, in fact, historical causes that have allowed terrorism to emerge over a period of time so it is important to address the different local root causes of terror.29


Three, the existing Israeli and US policy of fighting terror militarily, which is also being adopted increasingly by other governments, can, at best, have only limited and temporary success. Especially in the case of suicide bombers, you cannot deter someone who wishes to kill himself or herself, by threatening to kill them. According to Khouri, the British experience in Northern Ireland is one of the best contemporary examples of how "an intelligent, inclusive political response effectively brought an end to the terror that harsh police and military methods on their own could not stop." 30


There is also a need to ensure that just and legitimate liberation and self-determination causes do not become victims of the war against terrorism. After all, so many of yesterday's "terrorists" are today venerated as freedom fighters and national heroes. That is why the war on terrorism has to be redefined within the issue's proper political and social milieu - rather than continuing down the path of a narrowly-defined, primarily militaristic operational framework which not only failed to deny space to the terrorists, but is creating increasing space for future terrorists.


Also, in an effective war against terrorism, a major prerequisite is to stop talking in terms of "Islamic terrorism". Otherwise, mainstream Muslims will feel marginalised and victimised because of their religion and the global spread of Islam will then create what one assumes one is seeking to avoid: a clash between Islam and the US and its allies. As Dr Waseem points out, there is a danger of constructing a new collectivity: "the world of Islam … is increasingly understood as a bunch of Muslim states that shared the broadest denominational identity with the terrorist groups. This is a grim indicator of the fact that the contemporary world is passing through the fateful process of the crystallisation of an Islamic identity sans culture and tradition, history and geography, language and literature as well as public and private behaviour patterns. Here is the construction of the 'other' going on in a massive way." 31 This is a most dangerous reductionism. Just as the West, led by the US, made an expedient use of Islam as a policy instrument, in the 80s, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, so it is now trying to make the same expedient use of "Islamic terrorism" as an instrument of policy.


There is also a very real need to study the root causes of the problem of terrorism. Military power may deal with the immediate problem, but it can only aggravate the long-term threat. At the political level, the issues of Palestine and Kashmir need to be resolved in a manner committed to by the international community. Within this context, where democratisation has taken place, the results of that democratisation must also be accepted.


At the economic level, globalisation has to proceed in a manner in which groups and states feel less marginalised and where more equitable norms apply - so as to give all states a 'level playing field'. For instance, while Europe and the US continue to subsidise agriculture in different forms, it only creates resentments to have the IMF and IBRD tell developing countries to remove all traces of agricultural subsidies. Again, access to markets is critical for developing states as is freedom of movement of professionals - given that the service sector has been brought under the trade regime.


The problem of marginalisation of groups within states and of states within the system needs to be addressed. What is needed is not a forceful attempt at compelling the world to become an artificial monolith economically, politically and culturally. Unfortunately, that is what the US is presently attempting to do through its National Security Strategy in which pre-emption is justified on many counts ranging from ridding certain states of their weapons of mass destruction and what the US sees as unacceptable governments to imposing the free market economy and capitalism on the world at large. The heterogeneity of the world has to be recognised by the powerful and adapted to.


The fear of Islam as a powerful global force has to be replaced by an acceptance of this reality. Just as the world has learnt to live with a military super power, there is a need for this superpower and its allies to accept the spiritual power of Islam for people across the globe. Cultural and political pluralism have to be accepted with greater force even as economic globalisation cannot be stayed. If Islam continues to come under the sort of attack one is seeing in the Western media and amongst Western political circles, then Muslims of all shades will feel under threat and react. In fact, the debate on terrorism has to rid itself of the Islamic context, if it is to get anywhere substantive. The context of terrorism is political and that is the starting point in dealing with the issue. By removing terrorism from this false, religious context, dealing with the terrorists - including isolating them - will become much easier for states, especially Muslim states.


Perhaps the most critical need for dealing with the problem of terrorism is to break the cycle of violence at the correct phase. The Oxford Research Group (ORG), in a Briefing Paper on "The War on Terrorism: 12-month audit and future strategy options" (September 2002), identified seven stages in the 'classic cycle of violence' which they assert have been evident in the Palestine-Israeli conflict as well as in the different Yugoslav regional conflicts. The seven stages begin after the act of terror which leads to "shock terror" and on to "fear pain" then "grief" and on to "anger" and then "bitterness" leading to "revenge" and "retaliation" and the cycle goes on as another act of violence is set in motion (See Figures I & II). The post-9/11 "War on Terrorism" can also be analysed within this classic cycle. The ORG suggests that in order to break this cycle, intervention is needed at the stage of "anger" so that it does not go on to revenge and retaliation. Instead, a peace-keeping or peace-making intervention at the anger stage, followed by a series of other actions to contain violence through protection, deweaponisation, rule of law, bridge building, etc. can help undermine the cycle of violence (See Figure III).


Without adopting a holistic global strategy to deal with the problem of terrorism, which focuses on root causes and politico-social measures to accompany the military means, the international community will allow the terrorists continuing, if not an increasing political space.

.........................................................................................

European elegance sans prejudices
 

Shireen M Mazari

Coming back from Latin America, via Europe to Pakistan is a rude reintroduction to the biases, prejudices and machinations of interstate relations between us and the "West". The death of a Pakistani while in custody of the German police was one micro level reflection of this and immediately raised the issue as to why the German government failed to act against the newspaper republishing the blasphemous cartoons under Article 166 of the German criminal code? As Europe seems to be delving increasingly into racism and religious bigotry, one wants to remain submerged in the liberating environment of Latin America.

Thinking that Rio and Brazil would be hard acts to follow, Argentina proved one wrong in a most pleasant experience -- different from but equally exhilarating to that of Brazil. Buenos Aires exudes an elegance that reminds one of Madrid. But there is an unmistakably Argentinean spirit one senses immediately. The broad avenues, surrounded by beautifully restored elegant buildings, recall various periods of the Argentinian people’s struggles in their names. The plazas resound with the sound of the tango beat and in many ordinary places around the city, tango dancers divert and refresh people from their shopping and other routines. Just as the samba beat reflects the openness and quintessential Brazilian passion and beauty, the tango reflects the European elegance and undercurrents of passion and feeling that abound in Argentina. Although Buenos Aires does not have the broad racial mix of Brazilian cities, the largely white populace is truly free of underlying prejudices which often lie just below the surface in Europe.

In a deeply religious country, there were no biases against Islam that cropped up, or were insinuated, in any of the discussions and Q and A sessions one had in various institutions in Argentina. Instead, there was an eagerness to learn our viewpoint and understand developments in our region. Beginning with the National Defence College and moving on to our host institution, the Argentina Council for International Relations (CARI), which organised two different types of interaction, the exchanges could not have been more free and refreshing. It only reconfirms my longstanding view that we have lost out by ignoring Latin America -- a continent rich in its humanity, and full of resources and opportunities. There is a genuine interest in learning about Asia now in both Argentina and Brazil, and the sensitivity towards our religion is a welcome change from the responses one finds in Europe and the US. Clearly, it is not secularism that breeds religious tolerance.

The diversity of Argentina was reflected in the completely different setting we found in Salta city, the capital of Salta province up in the northwest of the country -- close to the border with Chile and Bolivia. There was nothing European here, but the city was absolutely breathtaking in its indigenous well-preserved beauty. The religious influence is very overt here with churches of all shapes, sizes and colours -- primarily of the Catholic faith -- to be found almost a few metres apart! The central cathedral in the main square of the city was richly endowed and was fully in use even around mid-day with a fair amount of worshippers attending the service even as visitors also intruded.

Again, giving a seminar at the Catholic University, it was exciting to see the interest shown in Asia by the students. The University also honoured me by giving me an honorary degree and in a dinner exchange of ideas with some members of the faculty, it was truly comforting to realise that in this part of the world there is no Islamophobia -- only a genuine respect for all religions. Salta’s charm was intoxicating and a trifle nostalgic because its physical surroundings reminded one of Islamabad -- only more lush, now that CDA has decimated our city, and devoid of the wide avenues of Buenos Aires!

Incidentally, Argentinean agriculture and their well-developed livestock industry has much to offer Pakistan and I was pleasantly surprised to come across an Argentinian businessman who is doing textile business with Pakistan and is truly in love with our country which he visits frequently every year. There are many unexplored business and educational opportunities for us to discover and avail once we move beyond our narrow focus on Washington and Europe only. Incidentally, we found that President Musharraf had charmed his audiences in both Brazil and Argentina.

Returning to Buenos Aires, I explored the city and saw the marks of the political tribulations of the Argentinean people, including the actual bullet marks on the building from where Peron staged his last fight against the military before going into exile -- from where he returned years later. I also saw the building from where Eva and Peron waved to the people after their political success and then there was Eva’s grave which is visited by so many who admired her and who mourn her death so early, when she was only in her early thirties.

Even now, Latin America politically continues to lead the rest of the world in terms of progressive trends. While so much of the rest of the world is dominated by right of centre or extreme right parties and rulers, Latin America is dominated by left of centre and leftist parties -- with the state still taking a large proportion of the responsibility for people’s welfare. Latin America has also suffered US super power machinations, including the pre-emptive and regime change doctrines, far earlier than the rest of the world, having had to confront the Monroe Doctrine and CIA interventions. That is why while one can feel a European influence, the US influence in terms of culture is not visible at all -- despite the yellow arches of McDonald!

Instead, there is an intense sense of a Latin American identity amongst the states of the region with the larger states trying to pull some of the more reluctant smaller states into a genuinely cooperative structure. It is the big states like Brazil and Argentina that have an overwhelming commitment to regional cooperation and identity. Moreover, we see the Venezuelan leader, Chavez, linking up with Castro so that each helps the other -- for example, the former with cheap oil to Cuba and the latter supplying Cuban doctors to every remote corner of Venezuela. Again, Chavez has extended his support to the Bolivian leader, who is seeking to nationalise the country’s energy resources. While Brazil and Argentina are concerned about this move, they have chosen quiet dialogue with the neighbours to resolve the problem rather than issuing threats and ultimatums. Today, Latin America is one region that really does have a positive regional identity which is being deliberately forged and bolstered at all levels.

That is perhaps why there is such a liberating and feel-good air that surrounds countries like Brazil and Argentina. They really do offer the best of all worlds -- natural beauty, cultural richness flowing from an acceptance of diversity, a unique tolerance and a zest for life. If ever our society needed to learn from another’s example, we need to learn from the countries of Latin America -- from their spirit of tolerance and from their political experiences both internal and external.

Coalitions of the willing
 

Post-9/11, the United States, along with its allies, has pushed forward an interesting approach to getting through its global agendas, when international consensus for them is not forthcoming, through the UN Security Council. This approach of forming "coalitions of the willing" to bypass the UNSC was most starkly reflected in the invasion of Iraq; but it is also being reflected in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactors (ITER) project, which India was invited to join last December and as a result of which India will now have free access to thermonuclear technology. This is a most dangerous trend of global interventions and a group of states allocating to themselves certain international prerogatives outside of the framework of the UNSC and international law, and it may well be operationalised in the context of the Iran nuclear issue.

Clearly, the US, France and the UK have been unable to convince Russia and China on the need to push through an open-ended UNSC resolution censuring Iran which would leave the way open for sanctions almost automatically. So now, the EU is seeking to make some "attractive" proposals to Iran. If Iran rejects these offers then we may see the EU and US using this as a pretext for imposing penalties outside of the UNSC.

In fact, at present, the US seems to be unwilling to accept the international community's desire for dialogue between itself and Iran. UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan's call for the same has found no positive response from the US, reflecting once again its disregard for the views of the international community. In any event, it seems a little absurd for the US to refuse to accept calls for a dialogue from the Iranian side, given that so far there are only alleged violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on the part of Iran.

This is in complete contrast to the North Korean case where the country left the NPT and declared it had acquired nuclear weapons. In response to this open challenge to the NPT, the US accepted the Chinese initiative of six-party talks, which are presently stalled. Despite this, the US has continued in efforts to restart the talks rather than seeking recourse to the UNSC.

So why is the US not prepared to talk directly through multilateral talks with Iran? And, equally important, why is the EU not pushing for such talks instead of simply trying to act as US surrogates when Iran knows only too well that the EU cannot make any commitment on behalf of the US? Should we assume that the difference between North Korea and Iran is the religious factor; or should we believe that the US is still suffering from an Iran trauma post-revolution and the hostage crisis?

Of course, if traumas can be so long lasting then Iran would have equal reason to desist from any contact with the US, given how the US intervened to overthrow a nationalist Iranian government and install the monarchy in Tehran! In any event, the US seemed quite willing to talk with Tehran during the Bonn process meetings on Afghanistan and also apparently on Iraq. Finally, on this issue, with the US now having itself contravened Articles I and III:2 of the NPT by signing the nuclear deal with India, how can it penalise Iran for alleged violations?

Whatever the case, the latest EU move of making yet another "offer" to Iran to forego effectively its rights under the NPT, seems a first step towards moving against Iran outside of the UNSC framework and therefore should be viewed with caution. After all, the EU knows Iran will not give up its right to low grade enrichment of uranium as allowed for under the NPT, so their demand that Iran halt all enrichment is neither fair nor plausible -- especially since many other NPT signatories like Japan, Australia and European states themselves also enrich uranium. What would have been more relevant was to get Iran to ratify the Additional Protocol and to resume observing its clauses as it had been doing earlier without the ratification. After all, it should be incumbent on all states to abide by all their international commitments, including treaty commitments.

Or else, the EU could offer talks on the model of the six-party talks involving the US, Russia, China, North Korea and its two important neighbours, South Korea and Japan. With Iran, the talks could involve the EU, the US, Russia and China -- and perhaps the UN Secretary General. The fact that the EU and the US are simply not prepared for dialogue on the nuclear issue with Iran shows a mala fide intent to create a scenario where a coalition of the willing can be put together to deal with Iran punitively -- something the international community through the UNSC is not prepared to accept at present.

It is in this context of the notion of coalitions of the willing that the new course being charted by NATO should also be a cause for concern for the international community, especially Asian states because this seems to be the new operational theatre being sought by NATO. Given that NATO's membership remains European and Atlantic, are these states going to decide on the strategic dynamics of Asia? It seems NATO is going to be one of the instrumentalities for carrying out the agendas of future coalitions of the willing -- as long as NATO consensus can be acquired, which was not possible in Iraq!

Some in Pakistan feel NATO offers possibilities for Pakistan through cooperative agreements but what will happen if such an agreement compels Pakistan to cooperate with NATO against one of its neighbours in the future -- be it Iran or even China in the distant future? A visiting Polish dignitary, on a recent visit to Islamabad, made a public statement that NATO was looking at the notion of expeditionary forces being sent to various parts of the world.

This expansion of the NATO agenda, from one of a limited collective defence organisation to a collective security organisation, with restrictive membership, has no legitimacy in international law or international norms today, since the UNSC is the only international collective security organisation sanctioned by the international community.

The argument that NATO functions more effectively because it has better resources and so on, does not hold since member states of the UN have chosen to deny this capability to the UN through the Security Council despite Chapter VII, Articles 42-47, which include provisions for a UN Military Staff Committee. To keep the UNSC without its teeth and then rationalise the expanding agenda and operational milieu of NATO seems a self-serving intent on the part of the US, France and Britain.

No matter what the lures may be in the short term regarding NATO and coalitions of the willing, for states like Pakistan moving outside of the framework of the UN is wrought with problems since coalitions of the willing observe no international norms or laws except those, if any, that may suit their agendas at a particular time even as they undermine international consensus and the legitimacy of the UN and its organs.

The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad
Email: [email]smnews80@hotmail.com[/email]

Pak-US Relations: No Room for Illusions
 

[SIZE="6"][B]Pak-US Relations: No Room for Illusions[/B][/SIZE]

By Dr Shireen M. Mazari

President Bush's visit to South Asia was all one expected it to be, although the level of intimacy he achieved with India went far beyond expectations. In Pakistan, a lot of time was devoted to a visit that in the end produced little of long-term strategic value for the country -- no matter what spin one puts on it. But why do we always have expectations from the US when they consistently make it clear that these will be refuted. In the present context, the most painful example was the nuclear issue.

Despite consistent statements from US officialdom -- right from the top down -- that Pakistan could never be treated to a deal similar to the Indo-US nuclear deal, we were being told by various utterances from Scherezade Hotel that we would be demanding such a deal and it could actually happen. A delusional air surely hangs heavy in various corridors here!

Of course, the US arguments for sustaining this differential treatment on the nuclear issue do not hold in any rational discussion given India's formal nuclear cooperation with Iran and the Saddam regime as well as its scientists' work in Iranian facilities, but then rationality has never been a strong point of US policies in this region. In any case, President Bush tried to put the delinking of India's nuclear status from that of Pakistan's in as polite a form as he could muster: As he put it, "Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and different histories. So as we proceed forward, our strategy will take in effect those well-known differences". Apart from the fact that he conveniently forgot that the two countries histories are also interlinked, he was right in stating that our nuclear histories are different because India broke the nuclear taboo in this region and it is India that has an extensive nuclear agenda as well as a questionable record in terms of nuclear cooperation officially with regimes like the Saddam regime! So is India being rewarded for its nuclear ambitions and past shenanigans?
Even more galling from the Pakistani standpoint, even on investment and market access opportunities, nothing was formalized. At the end of the day there were many promises and a commitment to a strategic dialogue at mid-level seniority, but nothing concrete. There can be no delusions as to where Pakistan stands with the US: We have an issue-specific strategic cooperation on the issue of terrorism. Beyond that, the US seeks an intrusive role in our domestic polity -- be it education or our political structures. Much has already been written on the Bush visit to Pakistan but there is nothing new or substantive for Pakistan that one can discuss. The only substantive agreement was the Declaration on Principles relating to the Integrated Cargo/Container Control Program (IC3), which is part of the anti-WMD and anti-terror agenda of the US. Even the issue of US forces violating Pakistan's sovereignty was ignored in terms of an expression of regret, let alone an apology, despite the fact that President Bush focused primarily on the "war on terror". Even the Bush body language in Islamabad was in marked contrast to the gushing and euphoric body language we saw in India. But why was anyone expecting anymore?

On Kashmir, where many Pakistanis went into a state of heady expectations after the Bush remarks to the Indian media prior to his visit, Bush clearly reversed into the traditional US posturing by the time he arrived in Pakistan from India. So on that count, too, it was clear that the US was not prepared to so much as put India in an even mildly irritable mood. Thankfully, President Musharraf also sought only US "facilitation" rather than mediation -- the latter portending dire results for Pakistan in the face of the new Indo-US relationship.

Far more important, especially in the long term, is the Indo-US nuclear deal. While the US talks of declining its relationship with India from its relationship with Pakistan, this delinkage in the nuclear field is going to have serious repercussions for Pakistan, especially when seen in the broader context of the US-India military pact with its missile defense component. In fact, the single most critical factor to come from the Bush visit is the Indo-US nuclear deal -- which was preceded by a nuclear agreement between France and India.
Effectively, the US has killed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). After all, any nuclear assistance to India, even in the civilian field, directly contravenes the NPT. Such assistance also contravenes the US Non-Proliferation Act, but the US can alter that. However, it cannot alter the NPT unilaterally so it has simply decided to kill it in a most brazen fashion. The global non-proliferation agenda is dead as a result of US unilateralism and total disregard for international treaties. Also, by allowing India a delinkage between its military and civilian facilities -- with India deciding which is which -- the US has accepted India de facto into the nuclear club. Pakistan remains outside and can now be targeted in the future on its nuclear program. Not that we cannot hold our own -- but it will be a source of future unwarranted threat/political pressure.

To make its rejection of the NPT even starker, the US has also given out its decision to retain its nuclear arsenal and to bolster it further -- thereby writing off Article 6 of the NPT. It is in this context that the US and Britain conducted a joint sub-critical nuclear experiment (February 23), Krakatau, at the Nevada test site. This has been followed by a statement from Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration declaring that "the United States will, for the foreseeable future, need to retain both nuclear forces and the capabilities to sustain and modernize those forces".
Nor is the Indo-US nuclear deal and the US formal abandonment of disarmament significant only for Pakistan. There will be consequences in terms of how the US now challenges Iran's nuclear program. After all, having laid the NPT to rest, how can there be any rationalization of taking the Iran nuclear issue to the UNSC? Also, unless the IAEA critiques the Indo-US nuclear deal, how can it further the goals of non-proliferation? Or is there now going to be a formal acceptance of the discriminatory approach to non-proliferation where only certain states' will be targeted for their WMD programs, while everyone else can continue to develop their WMD totally unchecked. After all, that is the signal that has been given to India in terms of its fissile material and nuclear weapons development. If one contrasts the manner in which the US is dealing with North Korea, where dialogue is being sought to resolve the nuclear issue, and Iran, one can make a valid assumption that it is the programs of Muslim states that will be targeted in the future.

In hindsight, Pakistan should have taken note of the Bush reference to its nationals as "Paks" in his opening statement to the Indian media in Washington. That would have better prepared many in Islamabad for the Bush visit. It would certainly have removed all delusional notions.

(The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The News)

[B]Emerging threat from[/B]


The US may claim that it has de-linked its relationship with India from that with Pakistan, but ironically, its policies relating to India now impact Pakistan's security concerns as never before and US government representatives continue to identify common security issues for Pakistan and India. In the context of the former, much has already been written in this column earlier on the direct security threat that the US-India nuclear deal poses to Pakistan, which will provide safeguarded US nuclear fuel for India's civil reactors and thereby liberate a large quantity of un-safeguarded Indian fissile material from these reactors. This can now be diverted to weapons production, allowing India to stockpile a vast nuclear arsenal.

In the context of the US constantly linking Pakistan and India in terms of regional security policies, we have now seen General Peter Pace, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a visit to New Delhi, urging Pakistan and India to work together to fight the Taliban. What was General Pace implying, given that India shares no border with Afghanistan and the highly questionable presence of Indian forces in Afghanistan is already a source of a security threat for Pakistan? Does he actually seek a more enlarged Indian military presence in Afghanistan? If so, is he truly unaware of the security dilemma and threat that would pose to Pakistan?

He also indulged Indian commanders as they apparently briefed him on New Delhi's concerns regarding Pakistan's Afghan policy. Now why should Pakistan's Afghan policy be a source of concern for India? Do we voice our concerns, of which there are many, to the US regarding India's Nepal policy, especially in the historical context of India's territorial expansion in the neighbourhood? And are we to actually believe General Pace's naiveté when he remarked that the Indians brought to his attention, "that the Taliban has sanctuaries in Pakistan"? Or was he actually using the Indians to voice his own accusations? Interestingly, while he declared that "Pakistan's President Musharraf is fighting hard to clear those territories" (that is, the so-called sanctuaries), the Pakistan army and state's efforts in this fight against terrorism was totally ignored.

This has been a common trait in US statements regarding Pakistan's massive contribution to the war against terror in the region. The state's role is barely mentioned and an attempt is always made to de-link the president from the state -- which seems to be an effort to undermine the state of Pakistan by insinuating that the state may not be fully supportive of the president's anti-terrorist commitment. This does no service either to Pakistan, which continues to sacrifice its own citizens in the fight against terrorism, or to the president in terms of his relationship to the state and society.

Clearly what we are seeing is a heightened arrogance on the part of the US with scant regard for the sensitivities of its allies. This is especially true in the context of Pakistan, whose nationals are often referred to as "Paks" in public remarks by US officials, including retired generals. Because we choose to be too accepting of all that is dished out to us, I suppose we are naturally prime targets of the prevailing American arrogance. But this arrogance is far more widespread. The US has only recently declared that the driver of the US truck that rammed into civilian traffic in Kabul, killing and injuring a number of Afghans, cannot be prosecuted in Afghanistan because of an agreement between the US and the Afghan government. So effectively US forces can act with impunity in Afghanistan.

Not that the US is concerned particularly with international norms and laws presently -- especially in terms of its soldiers and the treatment they mete out to their prisoners. According to a Los Angeles Times report of June 5, new policies on prisoners being drawn up by the Pentagon will leave out a key provision of the Geneva Convention that specifically bans "humiliating and degrading treatment". Given the level of abuse that prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay are already being subjected to, this action will only give a covert face to what is already a reality. For those in Pakistan, this arrogance becomes a direct issue of concern because one is increasingly seeing it being reflected in the Indian leadership's statements towards Pakistan and their approach to the bilateral dialogue -- especially the issues of conflict that show no sign of moving towards resolution. While the Indians have been exceptionally clever in creating a myth about their willingness to dialogue on all issues with Pakistan, while focusing primarily on atmospherics and trade, the reality of India's inability and unwillingness to dialogue on the conflictual issues in a substantive manner occasionally surfaces in bizarre ways that belie claims of the growing civil society interaction at all levels between Pakistanis and Indians.

A recent example of this was the issue of participation by Pakistani students from elite schools in a seminar/workshop on Kashmir in Pune, India. The project was part of the Initiative for Peace undertaken by the United World College, Hong Kong, over the last few years. This year the focus was on Kashmir and, as usual, Pakistan's elite schools chose their students who worked hard on learning about the Kashmir issue and dutifully sent their passports to the Indian High Commission in Islamabad. Close to the time of the planned departure, and after a period of almost three weeks, the Indian High Commission informed the students that their visa forms had been misplaced. Despite hastily re-filling these forms and despite a supposed intervention on the part of the High Commissioner himself, the students could not make it to Pune so the meeting on Kashmir went ahead without the main Pakistani participation.

Now what were Indian fears regarding Kashmir? Would they have been put in an awkward position if the Pakistanis had reiterated President Musharraf's proactive proposals on Kashmir and asked why there had been no Indian response? Or were they expecting embarrassment on their human rights abuses for almost over two decades in occupied Kashmir? Whatever the case, India's hard line approach towards political issues, and the rigidity of its Kashmir policy, do get exposed occasionally. And we should learn from these brief revelations of India's real intent on bilateral conflicts and its arrogant efforts to shift the focus to atmospherics and platitudes even as it seeks to undermine Pakistan at multiple levels internationally -- be it in misrepresentations to third parties or in efforts to seek intervention indirectly within Pakistan's internal dynamics under cover of the war on terror. It is in this context that Pakistan needs to be wary of the emerging US-India strategic nexus, both in terms of form and content.

Generous to a fault
 

The Pakistani state has certainly never been niggardly as far as its friends go -- especially if they happen to be part of the Muslim World. With our own citizens it is a different story. That is why while we have always been in the forefront of aiding Muslim causes since the time we came into being -- from lending our nationality to Tunisian and Algerian freedom fighters to taking up the cudgels for the Palestinian cause, we have continued to ignore the plight of our own Pakistani brethren stranded in Bangladesh.

Again, undoubtedly, it was in that spirit of being in the forefront of supporting the Ummah that dictator Zia decided to accommodate Saudi Arabia in its request that Pakistan provide temporary passports to Burmese Muslims fleeing religious persecution. The late King Faisal had acceded to the request of the Rabita Al Alam Al Islami to allow these persecuted Muslims to settle in Saudi Arabia, but wanted them to obtain passports from another country so as to facilitate their stay in Saudi Arabia. As usual, Pakistan stepped forward and obliged with passports and National Identity Cards on the understanding that these people would be granted Saudi nationality after 14 years of stay in the Kingdom -- that is, in the year 2000. Now the Saudis have reneged on this understanding and Pakistan is left with thousands of Burmese holding Pakistani nationality.

On financial matters, it is the same old story. One does not need to recount the scandalous tale of the sale of the Pakistan Steel Mills, details of which have already been exposed by the media, and the case is now before the Supreme Court. But it seems that we also showed an amazing generosity and accommodation to the UAE's Etisalat in the context of the sale of PTCL. When Etisalat failed to deposit the first installment despite three extensions of the deadline, Pakistan showed an amazing level of accommodation to renegotiate the deal with even more concessions because, as the then privatisation minister put it: "We wanted this deal with Etisalat". Now if only we can convince the UAE government to be as accommodating when it comes to projecting our perspectives in their media or accommodating our agricultural products in their market. And we need to remember that both PTCL and the Steel Mills were economically viable concerns at the time of their sale. Nor has Pakistan been anything less than generous in its sale of a controlling interest in Habib Bank to the Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development (AKFED).

However, our generosity is not limited to our dealings with fellow Muslim states and entities. If we just delve into our recent past in terms of state contracts with foreign companies, three features stand out: delays, cost overruns and penalties. Whenever we have had differences with foreign companies in terms of contracts, we have always ended up paying additional costs/penalties to these concerns. Take the case of the Ghazi Barotha project and the Italian firm, Impreglio. Delays in the initial start of the project plus 9/11 and the issue of security led Impreglio to move the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) to reclaim what it said it had invested in the project. The Pakistan government challenged the claim and insisted that the company had not invested in the project and so could not go to the ICSID and in January 2005 the ICSID gave a ruling in favour of the Pakistan government. Yet, Impreglio did not withdraw its case until the government made an out-of-court settlement. Why we did this is not clear, but the Italians then went back to work on the project -- after the government of Pakistan had paid vast amounts for the so-called settlement out of Public Sector Development Programme funds. Despite efforts to find out why we had to pay the firm, all I could discover was that there was an initial delay in the start of the project because the land purchase had not been finalised and the international loans had not been procured at the time the contract was signed. What was the hurry to sign before these arrangements had been made given that this would result in delays and, therefore, possible penalties?

It was the issue of delays and design alterations in the construction of the new Karachi airport that landed the government in a situation where it had to pay costs to the French firm, Sogea. Despite a provision in the contract that in case of dispute Pakistani laws would apply, the French company took the case to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Paris, in 1993, which constituted an arbitration tribunal. The Civil Aviation Authority took the case to the Sindh High Court and obtained a stay order which the ICC totally ignored. It went ahead with its proceedings and announced an award in 1996 in which the CAA had to pay the French company 509.91 million francs. No one was interested in the terms of the contract calling for the applicability of Pakistani law and in the end the French government intervened -- so much for private enterprise -- and the Pakistani cabinet acceded to the French demands and agreed to pay 476 million francs, in installments. After all, right or wrong, we could not sustain the French government's pressure.

Then there are the infamous independent power producer (IPP) contracts with which the country is stuck with and which have failed to resolve our electricity problems -- despite all manner of claims when the contracts were being signed. In fact, the IPPs have been the subject of legal and politico-economic battles in almost all developing countries where they have been established. The argument that IPPs allow governments to conserve public resources for other priorities is simply not correct because IPP investors will not construct a power plant unless they are sure they will be repaid – via a generous profit margin. Hence, they first require a power purchase agreement in place which means the electricity utility gives an undertaking to buy all the power produced, the price of the power usually in foreign currency.

Clearly, apart from the issue of corruption, and a recent tender relating to the import of British black cabs threatening to become the next scandal to hit the public, a far greater problem that seems to be emerging is our inability to either read the fine print in the contracts or to even read the contract carefully.

It is in this context that a decision to pledge the motorways and national highway for a mere Rs. 6 billion loan to meet the National Highway Authority's (NHA) maintenance backlog, raises security concerns. After all, these assets are strategic in the sense that they are our communication lines. Private banks, headed by Habib Bank, are the leading consortium, and, according to the news reports, the laws governing the NHA have been amended to reassure the banks that in case of a default they could take over the NHA's assets to recover their dues. Where in the world are strategic communication lines handed over to private parties to do with as they please?

But then our state has been too generous by far to others. Perhaps it is time to look after our own.

Europeans: more equal than others?
 

Let me state my position on capital punishment at the outset: I am unequi- vocally opposed to it on a number of counts. First, it does not act as a deterrent to murder and so far there is no data to show that the number of murders has been reduced as a result of the prevalence of the death penalty -- or that there are fewer murders committed in countries that have the death penalty than in those that do not. Second, from the developed to developing states, justice is never perfect and there is always human error. For instance, there have been cases even in the "developed" US where innocent people have been meted out capital punishment -- so life imprisonment is a more just option. Three, there is a moral issue involved regarding the whole notion of taking a life: if murder is wrong then on what grounds can one sanctify the taking of life by the state? This is of course not as straightforward as it may sound given the notion of war and so on, but it does reflect the moral dilemma linked to capital punishment.

Having said this much on capital punishment, at present there is the issue hitting the newspapers that relates to the murder of a taxi driver by a British citizen, in Rawalpindi, who has subsequently been given the death penalty. Of course, the European media has raised a hue and cry regarding the trial itself, along with Amnesty International, and there seems to be an absurd assumption that because the trial was in Pakistan it must, by definition, have been unfair or flawed. No doubt our legal system like so many others, leaves a lot to be desired but given the illustrious lawyers the British citizen had, and given that the family of the murdered man was hardly influential, why should there be an automatic assumption that the trial was flawed? Worse still is the assumption that an exception to the death penalty must be made in this case because it involves a British citizen. Why? Are British citizens above the law of the land in which they commit their crime or are they automatically to be treated above the rest of the local citizenry?

Of course, Amnesty has raised the issue of capital punishment per se, but it is the argument put forward by the head of Amnesty's South Asian team, Angelika Pathak who declares that the "death penalty is a symptom of a culture of violence". This does not hold true with ground realities. After all, Britain has no death penalty but there is systemic violence ingrained in its society -- from football hooliganism to racial violence and police violence. The last has reached new heights after the July 2005 London bombings and this was witnessed not only in the shooting of an innocent Brazilian (who was killed in a hail of bullets by the Metropolitan Police)but also in the more recent shooting and violence against a Bangladeshi migrant family in London. In fact, while much is made of the distorted version of the concept of jihad in Islam, no one is paying much attention to the Church of England's violent hymns like "Onward Christian soldiers" and others in a similar vein. That is why British and other European soldiers from the "coalition of the willing" that invaded Iraq have found it quite acceptable to violently abuse Iraqi prisoners and Iraqi civil society -- along with the US whose tales of Muslim prisoner abuse are now sickeningly notorious.

And what of the case of Israel where the death penalty is available only in two cases: "Offences against humanity and against the Jewish People committed by the Nazis and their abettors" and "treason in war time". Yet Israel is hardly devoid of a culture of violence. In fact violence and abuse are endemic in the Israeli population vis-a-vis the hapless Palestinians. So before Amnesty has substantive data it should refrain from declaring that the death penalty reflects a culture of violence -- no matter how attractive that may sound to a particular audience. There are multiple factors that breed a culture of violence.

Even more absurd is the manner in which Pakistan is being targeted for the meting out of capital punishment to a British citizen. The House of Commons actually passed a resolution questioning our judicial system and declared that the charges did not conform to the "standards laid by the European and Human Rights Commission". Are we in Pakistan supposed to accept these standards? And why was Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms not applied by the Europeans in the case of the blasphemous cartoons?

Interestingly, this is not the first case of a British citizen being meted out capital punishment in another country. The US has been carrying out capital punishment against a number of British citizens and I have yet to find any House of Commons resolution condemning this action on the part of certain US States -- although I am willing to be corrected on this count. For instance, there is the case of British national Nicky Ingram, who was executed in Georgia in 1995 and, according to anti-death penalty campaigner Clive Smith, his life could have been saved had the then British Prime Minister John Major intervened. In 2002, Blair refused to intervene personally, and British citizen Tracy Housel was executed, again in Georgia. Incidentally, Housel was denied access to a British consul after his arrest -- which is a right guaranteed to foreign nationals by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and a right which Pakistan has also respected. The US has ratified this convention but is famous for routinely violating it. Then there was John Elliott who was executed by the US state of Texas in February 2003, again despite appeals by the British government. I have yet to trace the record of House of Commons resolutions condemning the trials and executions of these individuals.

It is unfortunate that instead of fighting for principles and creating greater public awareness regarding the issue of capital punishment per se at the global level, the Europeans are seeking to use political and economic pressure on Pakistan to save a British citizen on death row. What message is being sent out to Europeans -- that they will be treated above the law in countries like Pakistan? Did the president of the EU Parliament write an equally forceful note to President Bush in the case of the now-executed British citizens as he has done to the Pakistani President, to whom he has sent what can only be regarded as an ominous note, stating that "the carrying out of this execution will cast a shadow over the reputation of Pakistan as it would clearly represent a rare combination of excessive cruelty and profound injustice."

It is unfortunate that the whole issue of capital punishment has become lost in the web of political pressures and diatribes from Amnesty and the EU. This does no service to the fight against the death penalty. Instead, it only shows that the EU regards its own as above the laws of others.

US democracy agenda: dangerous farce
 

Shireen M Mazari

The democracy agenda of the US has certainly not made much of a mark in the Middle East especially in Palestine where the US is supporting Israel's massacre of the Palestinians and the leaders they had elected in a transparent and democratic manner. The fact that the so-called "free world", with its leader the US, is content to watch in silence as Israel moves closer to a potential genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, shows the irrelevancy of democracy in the wider agendas of these states. Clearly, with the Palestinians rejecting the creation of a Bantuland in the Gaza Strip, Israel has decided to put a violent end to any dreams of a viable Palestinian state -– and the Bush Administration seems to have acquiesced in this murderous design. In these circumstances, it is unfortunate that a group of Pakistani Americans sought to visit Israel at the precise moment when Israel was conducting its onslaught against the hapless Palestinians.

More important, from a Pakistani perspective, is the sudden focus on democracy education by all and sundry for us Pakistanis. Notwithstanding the fact that the average Pakistani is probably more shrewd in terms of electoral norms and is as if not more politically aware than many in the West, especially in the US where the average citizen barely knows much about the world -- except when US soldiers go and get killed in far away places. Nevertheless, the donor agencies and the US have decided that they may find a more receptive audience in Pakistan, than elsewhere, to their version of democracy education. This is in keeping with the new trend amongst donors to focus more of their funds on advocacy than on service delivery. This gives a high profile to the donors with seminars in five-star hotels in the main urban centres and also allows them to push their agendas through in terms of our national policies. So what if the main population, especially in the rural areas is devoid of health and other services delivery. In any case, these services are primarily the responsibility of the state to begin with.

Coming back to the issue of democracy education, we now have the Women's Development and Youth Affairs Ministry undertaking a Norwegian-funded project entitled "Women's Political School", in coordination with the UNDP. This is intended to "mould" our women councilors into leaders. Equally important, why has it been assumed that only our women councilors need to be educated? Having seen the male variety, I think it is presumptuous to assume that the women are less politically aware than their male counterparts.

More disturbing is the issue of how different "moulding" really is from "indoctrinating"? Equally important, it would be interesting to know how much of the $4.5 million allocated for the fund will go to consultants and "teachers". Surely, all our elected (direct and indirect) women, in the Parliament and provincial assemblies should be obliged to undertake interaction with our women councilors in their constituencies, so both groups can become mutually aware of the issues and problems the other faces. This would be informative, educative and would not cost anything if one assumes the elected representatives do visit their constituencies on a regular basis. Why does one need massive foreign funding or a school for politics?

But these days, advocacy of all sorts is the name of the game in Islamabad. The result is that some organisations with highly contentious agendas have also moved in. For instance, it has been reported that a so-called "US expert" is coming all the way from the US to deliver a special lecture to women senators on democracy and the role of women lawmakers. If I were a woman senator I would be insulted at the assumption that I needed to be lectured on such basic issues by an American "expert". Apparently male senators will not be invited to this exclusive lecture. Who is this expert? Ah, therein lies the rub. It is a Ms Judy Van Rest who is the executive vice president of the International Republican Institute (IRI). "So what's the big deal?" the readers of this column may ask. After all, it would be logical to assume that this lecture and visit will not be at the expense of the Government of Pakistan and it is always good to listen to varied opinions even if it is a little demeaning to hear pontifications on democracy.

However, the issue is not so simple because the IRI's agenda is highly controversial. The Institute is loosely affiliated with the Republican Party -– now of Neocon infamy -- but it receives US government funding for so-called "international democratisation programmes". The IRI was founded in 1983 in the wake of a Reagan agenda item to promote a global "democracy" agenda which of course was not supposed to result in electoral victories for the likes of Hamas. Most of the staff of the IRI has strong links to right-wing think tanks and institutes as well to the neocons. Others represent the corporate interests of major oil, financial and defence sectors. IRI's President and CEO, George Folsom, was a member of the Bush-Cheney Transition Team and is also known to be a frequent guest at forums hosted by the extreme right wing Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute.

Given this background, it is not surprising to find the IRI being linked to political upheavals and attempted coups in Latin America. For instance, after the April 2002 aborted coup against Venezuelan President Chavez, who has been highly critical of the US government, many accused the Bush Administration of having been involved in this attempted ouster. While the Bush Administration denied any role, one connection did become clear between the US government and the anti-Chavez movement: American government funding was channeled through groups like the IRI to the anti-Chavez groups. According to Mike Cesar of the International Relations Center (IRC), with funding from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the IRI sponsored anti-Chavez activities in Venezuela and even flew his opponents to Washington to meet US officials.

In Haiti, in the first year of the Bush Administration, the IRI received USAID funds to effectively work with Haitian leader Aristide's opponents and the IRI point man in Haiti was a Stanley Lucas who had earlier been closely linked to the Haitian military. With such a dubious record, do our Senators really need to be educated by Ms Van Rest of the IRI? Incidentally, she was also in Iraq. And this seems to be another link developing in Pakistan. We now have US organisations moving into Pakistan, who have been working with the US government in Iraq. One prominent organisation is the Lincoln Group which has been working in Iraq and is now in Pakistan, and is one of three companies that were awarded a lucrative contract from the Pentagon, for the conduct of psy ops to improve foreign public opinion about the US, especially the US military. Already the Group has begun certain operations in Pakistan. And this is just one of many such groups that are now making their presence felt in Pakistan. Surely we need an awareness campaign on such groups?

As for democracy and political awareness, practice and indigenous experience sharing is the only rational teacher.

Recognising US duplicity
 

Shireen M Mazari

It is difficult to understand how the US expects the Pakistani state to continue giving it unflinching support on the war against terrorism when it uses every opportunity to challenge its policies --both external and internal -- and undermine its legitimate right to sustain a credible defence capability. Just when the Pakistani state thought it would now have access to US weapon systems, especially the F-16s, out comes the news that the US Congress is questioning this deal worth $5 billion. The pretext this time is that it needs to know how Pakistan will prevent China from having access to advanced US technology and whether there has been such a diversion already of US technology in Pakistani hands.

A short memory span seems to afflict the US Congress, given that Pakistan has not received advanced US military weapon systems and technology for decades now. In fact, we have suffered severe problems because of the now old weapons systems that we had acquired from the US because of the problem of spares and because some of those systems like the Cobra helicopters were unable to function effectively in our terrain conditions. Additionally, how can we, as a nation, forget the money we lost in a previous F-16 deal when we got no planes and no money back either? Instead, we received wheat and soya beans. Perhaps this negative Congressional response should be an advanced warning to us to recall how we got burnt last time by our "ally", the US. Our long-term answer to weapons acquisition in order to sustain a credible capability lies in seeking more indigenisation and cooperation with other states, with perhaps European suppliers to act as a short to medium term option. Perhaps we need to focus more on other delivery systems as well. Are the F-16s really that vital, given all the other long-term costs? And, given the new US-India strategic partnership, will we get advanced weapons systems in the F-16s or will we get systems that are just a tad less advanced than what India acquires? Let us also remember that buying the F-16s bolsters the US defence industry by bringing in vital funds so it is not as if the US does not benefit from these sales.

Even before the Congress moved against the F-16 deal, the last Rice visit to Pakistan should have been an eye-opener as to the treatment being meted out to the most critical state in the war against terrorism. Although domestic reports of this visit drew attention to the issue of democracy and elections, according to Jane's Intelligence report of July 6, Rice also focused on the nuclear issue. Despite clear evidence of India's proliferation record at the level of the state and in spite of Pakistan's laws on export controls and strong command and control structures (Pakistan is one of the few states, if not the only one, that has made public a detailed picture of its National Command Authority), Rice continued to express so-called US concerns over Pakistan's previous proliferation.

This now becoming absurd and farcical, since one cannot continue to dig up the past ad infinitum. Otherwise the US, France, Norway and Britain would be far guiltier of proliferation to Israel, and if the past was to continue to be dredged then where would post-1945 Germany be in terms of acceptability as a major European player? And while all these states have been guilty of omissions at the level of the state, Pakistan's proliferation issue has never been state-centric -– being focused on one Pakistani individual along side a group comprising Europeans and Asians. So the US needs to end its farce of using the A. Q. Khan issue to deny Pakistan a nuclear deal similar to the one given to India.

At the same time, perhaps Pakistan needs to examine whether it really wants to go for a civilian nuclear deal with the US because in Pakistan's case it will have extremely intrusive measures that may undermine our weapons capability in the long run. We would be far more susceptible to increasing demands and access relating to our weapons capability. In any event, Pakistan needs to take stock of whether we have really been suffering by not gaining access to US civilian nuclear technology? Somehow, the answer would not be in the positive.

According to Jane's, Rice also referred to the Iran nuclear issue with Pakistan, with an expectation that Pakistan would also adopt the Indian position on Iran. That would clearly be against our national interest because we need to continue to support Iran's right to acquire nuclear energy even as we sustain our principled position on the obligation of states to stand by their treaty obligations. Of course the US has no time for principles these days as it flouts one international treaty after another. The US Supreme Court verdict on Guantanamo Bay showed how far the Bush Administration had flouted all norms of justice and international law.

This is not to say that we should not exploit the opportunity we have vis-a-vis the US because of our essential role in the war on terrorism. But our cooperation should come in a more equitable fashion with clearer quid pro quos and greater transparency. The US and its various governmental and associated NGOs should not get unhindered access to the resources and lay of the land. Clearly, our cooperation with the US will always be issue-specific.

Equally important, we need to focus more strongly on our commitment to multilateralism and the UN. In this connection, we should be active on the issue of the new UN Secretary General. It is ironic that at present it is the Muslim World that offers the most competent potential women candidates from Asia. Iran could really catch the US on the back foot by nominating Shireen Ebadi, but we would also be projecting ourselves very favourable by pushing for Dr Maleeha Lodhi's candidature. Win or lose, she would give a positive global projection not only of Pakistan, but also of the capabilities of the Pakistani woman. Whatever one's micro level disagreements, it is in the interest of the Pakistani woman to support Dr Lodhi who lacks nothing in competence and professional capabilities. Her candidature in itself would be good for Pakistan.

Of course, the US is playing a devious game here also because it wants to have a Polish candidate for the secretary-general's position, so it is letting the Asians fight it out initially. But in the face of a female candidature, it would be hard pressed to press ahead with its covert intent. As for the Indian candidate, the UN can certainly do without yet another UN bureaucrat as secretary-general. Pakistan has always played an active role in international forums, especially the UN, and in the present global milieu, bolstering the role of multilateralism is essential for it. And what better way to project the Muslim World favourably than by pushing for a female candidate. Every rapidly developing state has its share of problems but we need to rid ourselves of our psychological confidence deficit.

The Indian-Israeli terror nexus
 

By Shireen M Mazari

The present situation in the Middle East shows the desperate need for the UN to include state terrorism within any international convention on terrorism. Israel's unleashing of its military might against the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian people and against the hapless Lebanese state shows most starkly the terrorism a state with massive military resources can unleash.

With US President Bush and his faithful sidekick Tony Blair, continuing to declare their absurd refrain of Israel's "right to defend itself", the international community has been reduced to a frustrated spectator to this latest act of Israeli terrorism. If ever there was a true reflection of unilateralism, it is this ability of the US to undermine all efforts at multilateral diplomacy and international peace and security.

Apart from the historic record of Israel to kill Arabs at will -- after all who can forget the massacres of Sabra and Shatila and the almost daily target killings by the Israelis of Palestinians -- the efforts by Israel and its defenders to rationalise the present military onslaught against Palestinian and Lebanese civilians has absolutely no legal or moral justification. A state cannot be allowed to massacre civilians at will in response to the actions of a non-state actor. As for the notion of 'collective punishment' -- if that is to become part of international state behaviour, then there will be total anarchy in the world. Already the US, with its unilateralism and notion of 'coalitions of the willing' is reducing the international system into an anarchic one making existing international law and norms of inter-state behaviour almost irrelevant. If the Israeli notion of collective punishment is accepted then even more chaotic scenarios can result. If, for example, a Pakistani soldier is kidnapped or killed by an Afghan, should the Pakistani state have the right of collective punishment and move it's military into Afghanistan? By such perverse logic, it really depends on who is more powerful, not who is right.

If Israel continues to get the indulgence it is getting from the US and its European allies -- one really wonders how much more sufferings the Palestinians will have to endure in order to pay for Europe's Nazi guilt -- it may well become more adventuristic and widen the conflict to Syria and Iran. Iran has already given a commitment to defend Syria against Israeli aggression and probably the only thing stopping Israel so far is the element of the unknown with regard to Iran.

There is also a wider plan of the US-Israeli combine to eventually break up what are seen as "strong" Muslim states. Iraq is already slipping into a divisive, ethno-sectarian civil war and since 9/11 the US has sought to undermine the Saudi ruling family. There are some in the US who think a Shia Arab state carved out of Eastern Saudi Arabia (where the bulk of the oil also lies) and southern Iraq could be a counter to Iran. This is as bizarre as it is untenable, but then logic and rationality have not always held sway in the US. As for Jordan, the Israelis along with the US have been thinking of this "third option" -- that is, annex the West Bank, push Palestinians into Jordan creating a Palestinian state there, as a way out of their dilemma of having to accept the reality of a viable Palestinian state. So far the Jordanians are holding their ground as the chaos increases around them.

Meanwhile, as Israel finds itself free to conduct its terrorism in the region, India is seeking to assume a similar role in dealing with Pakistan although so far it has restricted its actions to verbal barbs only and to "postponing" the peace process -- such as it was -- although there are mutterings of "hot pursuit". The reason for Indian 'restraint' is not humanism but South Asia's nuclear reality. So let us once more thank those who persisted against all odds in giving the Pakistani nation its nuclear deterrence. This should dissuade India from its efforts at brinkmanship -- a strategy it employed rather unsuccessfully in December 2001.

Equally important for Pakistan should be the realisation of the fragility of the peace process despite Pakistan's major moves towards conflict resolution. Not only were these never reciprocated by the Indians, India used the first opportunity it found to halt the process itself. Despite no proof and despite some members of the Indian cabinet insisting that the Mumbai blasts could be the work of Hindu extremists, the Indian leadership and its compliant media lashed out against Pakistan. It seems the Indian psyche has not moved out of its traditional hostile mode towards Pakistan and that is why it was probably finding the peace process increasingly uncomfortable. After all, the atmospherics had gone on long enough; it was time to move substantively on conflictual issues and India is not ready for that, as reflected in its continued use of state terrorism in Occupied Kashmir.

This is also a good time for Pakistan to reassess the direction of this peace process, seeing as how vulnerable it remains to Indian sabotage. Was there anything substantive that has been lost in the present postponement? If not, then what was the worth of this process? Peace cannot be sustained by one party alone. While Pakistan was showing good intent and commitment to anti-terrorism, India was busy in covert actions against Pakistan -- primarily through Afghanistan. Despite all the evidence, Pakistan decided not to go public on the India-Afghan linkages to the BLA -- which has offices both in the centre of Kabul and in New Delhi. Nor have we made much of a noise about the presence of Indian Special forces in Afghanistan, despite ample evidence, including intercepts, to suggest Indian efforts to intervene in our border provinces. All this so that the peace process does not get derailed. (Some among

our political elite even made offers which run contrary to our policies -- as happened on the FMCT.) Now India has derailed the process with accusations and histrionics to hide the fissiparous tendencies within itself.

Of course, now that the UK has declared the Balochistan Liberation Army a terrorist organisation, Pakistan should take up the issue of India and Afghanistan's support for it more vigorously, especially since India is a strategic partner of the US and Afghanistan is still in the control of its NATO-US 'liberators'.

As for the Arab World, their sheer helplessness, despite their economic power, is a disgrace. They have failed to translate their economic strength into political and military prowess, and so remain subject to the political, psychological and military terrorism from the West and Israel. Is it any wonder the Arab street continues to become more radicalised? And the anger and frustration is spreading to Muslim civil societies beyond. In the final analysis, state terrorism has to be condemned, irrespective of the power of the perpetrating state.

A Muslim's shame and outrage
Shireen M Mazari

The angry helplessness keeps growing as one watches the murder of the Lebanese people by the criminal Israeli state, aided and abetted by the US. Clearly, the will of the international community has been effectively thwarted by the US, at the UN Security Council, which wants Israel to continue to kill Lebanese and Palestinians till its murderous appetite is sated. How much blood of these hapless peoples will have to be spilled before the Israelis are satisfied? The world will only know when the US, supported by its continuing faithful sidekick Blair of Britain (this is what Brittania has been reduced to!), allows a ceasefire resolution to go through in the UNSC. Of course, judging by the past record, this satiation of the Israeli appetite for Arab blood will only be temporary, but it will allow some breathing space, literally, to the Lebanese and Palestinian people.

That one powerful state can prevent the whole world from providing some succour to the victims of a rogue state and can reduce international law to nought shows the fragility of an international system premised on law and basic rules of conduct in peacetime and in war. But of course, post-9/11 Muslim and Arab blood has become cheap and the US itself has shown its penchant for depriving Muslims of even the most basic of human dignity –be it in Qila Jhangi, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib or Bagram.

So the rage continues to build across the world, but especially in Muslim civil societies. As a Muslim I am angry not only at the US and Israel but also at the Muslim states which have shown a total lack of courage and will to challenge the lawlessness of the Israeli-US combine which is resulting in the murder of countless innocents in Palestine and Lebanon. With all its combined economic and military potential and capabilities, the Muslim World has shown an amazing degree of haplessness in the face of the Israeli military aggression. A lack of unity and parochial interests has made the OIC, for all intents and purposes, the Organisation for Immobilised Countries. One by one each can be victimized at will it would appear -- especially within the Arab World. Yet Article II (A:4&6 and B:4) of the OIC Charter provides its members with legitimate grounds for intervention in Lebanon.

An emergency meeting of the executive committee of this ineffectual body will take place in Malaysia on August 3, but it would have been more appropriate if an OIC envoy had paid a visit to Beirut at least two weeks earlier. Even in symbolic terms it would have given a feeling to the Lebanese that they had not been abandoned by the Muslim World. As it is, as a Muslim I watched in vain to see a timely high profile visit from a Muslim leader to Beirut even as representatives of European countries arrived in that besieged capital. And as a Muslim I have been reduced to shame to see the damning silence of the Muslim World in the face of the continuing killings of Arabs by the Israelis and in the face of the impassioned pleas of the Lebanese leadership. Earlier, in Rome, Fuad Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, in a voice trembling with emotion, listed the unending record of Israeli aggression against the Lebanese state as Condoleezza Rice stood unmoved and determined to indulge Israel's killing spree, and Kofi Annan showed his bureaucratic mindset which circumscribed his condemnation of Israeli aggression in Lebanon. This should be one reason why a UN bureaucrat should never be made Secretary General of the Organisation. Watching this Rome press conference was a source of pain and anger not only at the impunity of the US -- which continued to rationalize Israel's aggression against innocent civilians --but also at the absence of the Muslim states' voices of protest. A few whimpers is all one continues to hear but no challenge to the Israeli killing spree.

Are the Muslim states' really so helpless in the face of Israeli aggression and killing? We, who are so ready to kill each other, have been frozen into inaction as the brave nation of Lebanon faces the might of a murderous Israel. Or is it our internal differences that prevent us from unifying into a source of power and strength? Is this what the Ummah has been reduced to? I also wonder whether the civil societies in Europe felt the same rage and frustration as Hitler proceeded unhindered in his murderous designs and leaders like Britain's Chamberlain acquiesced at Munich?

As a so-called moderate or "westernised" Muslim I resent the unhindered targeting of Muslim states by the powerful and their allies -- especially the US and Israel. And, in this context, I cannot help but admire those amongst us who have the courage to fight for the just cause of Palestine and the battle against Zionist aggression. But as an ordinary Muslim who has never seen the need to wear my religion on my sleeve, I am also frustrated at the continuing loss of political and social space to the extremists in our midst, because of the sheer ineffectiveness of the mainstream Muslim political leadership to defend the rights of the Muslims and to protect the Muslims from the killings at the hands of rogue and criminal states.

The force of the Bush Administration's unilateralism is all-pervasive. In the Middle East it is allowing a bloodbath of the Arabs. Closer to home it is giving cover to India's proliferation record and seeking to provide India with a legitimate cover for its LIC operations against Pakistan by seeking to give Indian forces legal access into Afghanistan under the guise of "international peacekeepers". It seems there are no limits to the US pursuing its unilateralist agenda just as there are no effective limits on Israel's murderous designs within its own neighbourhood.

The Muslim states of the Middle East are being ripped asunder and Rice has the nerve to proclaim that these are the birth pangs of a "new Middle East"! The foundations of a subjugated Arab world are being built on Arab blood, especially that of its future generations --given what seems to be the special targeting of children in Lebanon and Palestine. I suppose the US logic in allowing Israel its killing spree, and obstructing international calls for an immediate ceasefire is to let as many of the next generation of Lebanese and Palestinians be killed as is possible so that eventually there are few left to fight the tyranny of Israel and its expanding occupation of Arab lands.

The voice of the Muslim states has been muted effectively. But the voice of the Muslim people cries out loudly. As a Muslim, I see us besieged from without and from within and as the carnage continues against the Palestinians and Lebanese my sense of outrage at Israel and the US is juxtaposed by my shame as part of the Muslim Ummah

[B]The war of terrorisation [/B]
Shireen M Mazari

Five years on from 9/11, what the Muslim World is beginning to witness is the transformation of the war against terror into a War of Terrorisation of Muslim polities and Muslim civil societies -- and all this under the continuing guise of the war against terror. We saw the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Bagram, and we meekly accepted the US and its allies' explanation of this as mere 'collateral damage'. We have been witnessing the continuing flagrant violation of international law, with total impunity, in the treatment of the incarcerated Muslims in Guantanamo Bay but the sole super power has claimed for itself a role that is not subject to any international norms.

The US invasion of Iraq rid the world of the Saddam dictatorship, which had previously been bolstered by the US and its European allies as it used chemical weapons against its own people and Iran. But in the process the Iraqis have been increasingly terrorised and torn apart by sectarian divides and violence and abuse as a result of the invasion as well as at the hands of the invading American and British forces. The rape and pillage of Iraqis by US forces has become so routine that it seems to have lost its shock value. That the US has failed to condemn its soldiers who joined the action in Iraq for the sole purpose of 'killing Iraqis' shows the terrorisation agenda of the 'coalition of the willing'.

The invasion of Iraq dissipated the war against terror, but the Israeli killing sprees in Gaza and now in Lebanon have surely altered the whole nature of this war itself. If it was not clear at the time of the Iraq invasion, the Israeli attack against Lebanon should leave no room for doubt that the Bush-Blair combine, alongside the murderous state of Israel, are conducting a war of terrorisation meant to subdue Muslim states and civil societies into submission to their global agendas. The present targets are the Arab states and societies as well as Iran and the pretexts are created to suit the situation. So Hamas's kidnapping of an Israel soldier provided the rationalisation for what had already become ongoing violence against the Palestinians in Gaza since the electoral success of Hamas. The kidnapping by Hamas was itself in desperate response to this violence by Israel, especially when it targeted innocent civilians picnicking in Gaza. And now Israel has gone beyond all norms of civilised state behaviour with its targeted assassinations and its grabbing of Hamas elected political leaders as prisoners. Supported by the Bush-Blair combine, Israel clearly feels it is not subject to any international laws and norms of state conduct.

As for Lebanon, to see the Hizbollah's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers as the start of the present crisis is nonsensical. Not only has Israel continued to occupy Lebanon's Shebaa Farms area, it has violated the Lebanese border at will since it withdrew its occupation forces from Southern Lebanon in May 2000. It had also stepped up its policy of assassination of Lebanese, in Lebanon, belonging to groups opposed to Zionist expansionism and it has continued to carry out unprovoked firing to kill innocent Lebanese in southern Lebanon. Through all this, Israel has refused to give any information of the mines it had laid in southern Lebanon. Just days before the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers by Hizbollah, Israeli forces had violated the Lebanese border and carried out their usual firing attack against the people of southern Lebanon. What has galled the Israelis and the Bush-Blair combine has been the ability of Hamas and Hizbollah to respond and stand their ground against Israeli aggression.

The war of terrorisation has seen a challenge from these forces of the Muslim world even as the Arab states have adopted a deafening silence, signalling a helplessness and submissiveness to the Bush-Blair combine. Even as Muslim civil societies have had to face the horror of Israeli attacks against innocent Lebanese, Blair has had the nerve to carry out a tirade against Muslims in a speech delivered to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles last week. While British diplomats and the US government are trying to seek a ban on the truth about the Israeli horrors in Lebanon by pressurising the Arab media into submission, Blair actually has the audacity to declare that in the media coverage, there is no "understanding of the Israeli predicament". How many innocent Arab lives have to be sacrificed to push forward an understanding of the "Israeli predicament" Mr. Blair? For how long will the Arabs have to pay for the sins of the Nazis? And if the truth be told, surely it is the US that is preventing democracy in Palestine, not the so-called 'Muslim extremists', Mr Blair, or are you going to wear your convenient blinkers while Arabs face slaughter at the hands of the Israeli military machine? And who is actually carrying out the "slaughter of the innocent and doing it deliberately" in Lebanon and Palestine? Israeli forces aided and abetted by the Bush-Blair combine.

Who has given Blair the right to speak on behalf of what he calls 'moderate Muslims' in the first place? No, clearly there is another insidious war going on and that is a war of terrorising the Muslims into accepting the new US-UK agenda, which seeks submissive Muslim states and polities around powerful core states like Israel and India.

Yes, India is an integral part of the new emerging doctrine of coalitions of the willing and core states. That is why India has responded obediently to the US government's call for the banning of the Arab electronic media since the truth will further ignite Muslim civil societies. And that is why US Assistant Secretary of State Mr. Boucher, in his statement from New Delhi, appeased India by declaring willy-nilly that, "some of the groups that have designs against India still have pieces in Pakistan". What exactly he meant by 'pieces' in this context is not clear, but then coherency has never been a strong point of the present US Administration. The point is that the US has once again shown that if push came to shove it would always back India against Pakistan. So, of course, no mention was made of India's now-established support for terrorists in Pakistan.

For Pakistan it should now be clear that it has to fight its own war against terrorism for its own national interest -- regardless of how the US-led war on terror transforms into a war of terrorisation. But Pakistan must also realise that no matter how far it goes in the sacrifices it makes in life and limb for the international war against terror, it will periodically face politically-motivated accusations from those it is assisting. Even more important, Pakistan is perhaps one of the few Muslim states that can hold its own against any war of terrorisation -- if it can overcome its psychological confidence deficit. At the end of the day the war between extremists and moderates has to be fought by us, within the ummah, but the war of terrorisation that is targeting Muslims is increasing the odds against the forces of enlightenment and moderation.

[B] Threat nuances against Pakistan [/B]



[I]By Shireen M Mazari[/I]
It seems the US is not prepared to give the Pakistani leadership any decent respite from its "do-more" mantra in relation to Afghanistan. And as NATO/ISAF continue to show an inability to deal with the resurgent Taliban threat, which is increasingly becoming more of a Pashtun resistance, the proclivity to blame Pakistan for their failures increases. So we have had Dick Cheney now visit us and demand that we do more, while from Washington President Bush has also, if US media reports are to be believed, threatened Pakistan with his inability to stop discriminatory legislation if we are not seen to be "doing more" on the Afghan front. As usual, loyal Britain has added to this mantra, through its Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Beckett, who happened to be visiting Pakistan at the time of the Cheney stopover. And as if that was not enough poisonous hot air for us, the present US-compliant Canadian government also added to this rather tedious refrain.

Of course, if Bush is to be believed that he cannot control what happens in a Democrat-dominated Congress, then whether or not Pakistan "does more" will not impact the discriminatory legislation against Pakistan, so the issue is moot. However, we should pay serious attention to what is happening presently in our region, especially with the massing of US troops rather close to Pakistani waters. After all, the American aircraft-carrier, USS John C Stennis, is anchored about 120 nautical miles off the coast of Pakistan. Now the US may claim that this has nothing to do with Pakistan and that it is not even threatening Iran, but the reality is different. That there is a most serious and direct threat being staged against Iran by the US is a given, but let us look at the implications of this particular carrier for Pakistan. Clearly, it is a veiled threat of use of force, which can be to either pressure Pakistan further on Afghanistan, or to compel it to refrain from any adverse (for the US) action in case of an attack against Iran.

That the USS Stennis's position is contrary to the UN Charter is also equally clear. Article 2(4) of the Charter states: "All member states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…." Although the USS Stennis is in international waters, it's positioning is threatening for Pakistan. In UN debates on the issue, the positioning of such carriers close to merchant sea-lanes, as notified by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), is seen as a clear threat of use of force. So Pakistan needs to take up this issue with its "ally" before things get further complicated, especially in terms of a growing US belligerency against Iran -- and the possibility of a similar belligerency against Pakistan.

It is in this context that Pakistan needs to ensure that it does not get drawn into any configuration with Muslim states that could be perceived as a US-crafted or inspired emerging bloc against Muslim states hostile to the US. That is why the statement decrying the use of force against Iran that came from the meeting of the seven Muslim foreign ministers in Islamabad last week was extremely timely and necessary. However, from Pakistan's perspective future meetings of this group will serve a better purpose if Iran, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon are, included since Middle East peace requires their support and therefore their inputs. After all, Muslim states cannot behave like the US and impose "solutions" on states without even talking with them. Also, including Bangladesh would also seem to be an added plus, given its commitment to UN peacekeeping and the centrality of the Muslim World to it. In any event, given that out of the group of Muslim states that met in Islamabad, four had established relations with Israel -- that is, Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt and Jordan -- many are construing this meeting, no matter how incorrectly, as an attempt to widen the recognition of Israel to include those holding out like Malaysia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. These are unnecessary misperceptions that can be removed if the group is expanded to include the critical Middle East-Gulf players.

In the context of Iran, the diplomatic openings made between Saudi Arabia and Iran, no matter how tentative, need to be encouraged. In contrast, the report in a Pakistani newspaper, citing Kuwaiti sources, that the UAE and other Gulf states had agreed in principle to allow Israel to use their airspace in the context of an attack on Iran needs to be countered -- through the media, if it is only a report, and through diplomacy if there is any truth in it. In the latter case, it would be a lethal adventurism for such states who would surely suffer a major fallout of any attack against Iran.

On Iran itself, there are so many contradictory statements coming out from the US that at the end of it the only thing that seems to be clear is that the US is seeking regime-change in that country and the nuclear issue is simply one pretext. While some amongst the US leadership want Iran to roll back all its nuclear advances, Condoleezza Rice has recently declared that Iran only has to suspend, not reverse, its nuclear programme. Meanwhile, the Europeans are also saying different things, with Britain and Germany most vociferously opposing Iran. While all this posturing is going on, reports are now being confirmed that the US is funding dissident Iranian groups, especially in Iranian Balochistan where it is lending support to the Balochistan United Front of Iran. It is within this context that one has to see the attack against the bus filled with Revolutionary Guards recently in Sistan. For Pakistan again, this raises serious issues because it could also lead to US support for Pakistan's dissident Baloch groups and terrorists.

It is interesting to note that the US and EU have yet to declare the BLA a terrorist group -- although the UK has now done so. In a more quid pro quo approach, shouldn't Pakistan demand that the US and EU move to declare the BLA a terrorist group before they continue with their nauseating "do more" refrain for Pakistan? Why is the US so hesitant in taking such a step, unless it is to use this as a source of pressure for Pakistan?

Whichever way we look at developments in our own neighbourhood, it is apparent that even if Iran is the primary target for the US and its potential coalition of the willing, Pakistan will also be targeted -- even if only as necessary "collateral damage". That is why we need to proactively ensure that this design is thwarted and we are not willy-nilly compelled to become an unwilling "ally" in what will be a self-destruct scenario for us. Already we are paying a heavy price for the blinkered military-centric policies of the US and NATO in Afghanistan. We cannot afford to do the same in the Iran-Gulf context. Let us use our not-insufficient means to proactively chart a more viable course externally.

An OIC awakening?
 

[B]By Shireen M Mazari

The OIC Secretary General recently made a reference to the possibility of an OIC peacekeeping architecture. The OIC may finally be getting something right in its new activism since even before anything substantive has happened, many external actors are already expressing their opposition covertly -- often using NGOs within Pakistan which are leading this proactivism. Clearly, this implies a recognition that if the Muslim World manages to get its act together and evolves a united approach to the problems confronting it, it can actually achieve results. This may not always be in consonance with the self-serving interests of major powers and hence their trepidation at a substantive awakening of the OIC.

However, Muslim states must equally be aware of the sensitivities of all OIC members and any move that may be seen as an effort to create cliques within the Organisation will jeopardise political initiatives before they can become operational. Equally, OIC activism cannot be directed against any one member of the Organisation or even perceived as being such. That is what the forthcoming meeting in Islamabad of "like-minded Muslim states" to arrive at an operational blueprint of President Musharraf's OIC initiatives has to guard against. After all, Muslim states cannot afford to be part of any US-desired bloc against Iran. In fact, if OIC solutions are to be found to the conflicts afflicting the Muslim World in West Asia, then Iran has, of necessity, to be part of the solution. This requires dialogue which includes Iran and the Arab World, and in this regard Saudi Arabia's tentative interaction with Iran should point the way. After all, if the Arab World is prepared to interact and talk to Israel -- the enemy for many of them -- then it should have no hesitancy in dialoguing with Iran. Similarly, Iran also needs to realise that it needs to move towards confidence building within its immediate neighbourhood to deny US and Israel operational space.

Nor is it just the isolation of Iran within the OIC collectivity that needs to be avoided. We need to be equally careful not to leave out very central Muslim states, especially states that have been in the forefront of international peacekeeping operations, like Bangladesh, when we are seeking a new pro-activism from within the OIC. After all, why limit the notion of "like-minded states" to a mere seven when others could also be invited to expand the consensus within the Muslim collectivity. Here, Iran also needs to be co-opted -- even if it means getting them to participate as observers so no one feels compromised or neglected. After all, we are not seeking to create a bloc within the OIC to oppose other OIC members -- as the US is seeking.

Coming back to the OIC collectivity's efforts to awaken itself from its decades of stupor and actually think about an OIC peacekeeping framework, this is a critical need of the hour. There are two dimensions that can be operationalised within the concept of OIC peacekeeping. First, at an overall macro level, the OIC should ask all its member states to earmark certain contingents of its national military for use in aid of other Muslim states -- preferably within the framework of the UN, but also within the regional context of the Arab League or even the African Union. Presently, the European states have begun doing this more frequently -- operating under a UN mandate but outside of the Blue Berets, acting instead as a European force.

A second peacekeeping/peacemaking action that can be contemplated by the OIC is to put together an OIC force, composed of states outside of West Asia but including perhaps states like Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh to name a few, for Iraq. Such a force can only become operational contingent upon three necessary conditions:

• One, such a force is accepted or requested by the Iraqi government and all other warring Iraqi factions.

• Two, a UN mandate is forthcoming.

• Three, the present occupying forces of the 'coalition of the willing' depart.

There are those who fear that such a move would be providing the US an exit strategy and result in the killing of Muslim forces. However, the point here is that the US has to be made to leave Iraq if we are to see the retention of a united Iraq. So, whether or not such an OIC move may provide the US and its allies with an exit strategy is not the main issue. Rather, the primary issue is to stabilise Iraq as a united state so that the instability that is spiralling in the region is arrested.

In terms of funds and capabilities, despite widespread views to the contrary, the OIC is well-equipped with both. What has so far been lacking is the political will to move collectively by overcoming misperceptions and conflicts within the collectivity. It seems this will is now being generated and the Pakistani leadership's proactivism, along with the outreach by Saudi Arabia, must be sustained. The positive Saudi and Egyptian interventions to resolve the intra-Palestinian conflict and the Palestinian factions' response to this, shows that such moves are not only needed, they are being sought to fill the vacuum in these conflict zones which has allowed extra-regional powers to occupy space with their negative policies.

Presently, the proliferation and force build-ups by extra-regional powers in West Asia, especially the Gulf region, threatens to destabilise and perhaps set afire the whole neighbourhood. Even more dangerous are American ideas of redrawing borders to cut the larger Muslim states "down to size". Therefore, the need for evolving a broad consensus amongst the OIC members, even while intra-OIC disputes prevail -- is no more a choice but a necessity. Such a basic consensus can also provide a more conducive environment for conflict resolution amongst the OIC members themselves.

Also, as part of what seems to be a new proactivism on the part of the OIC, it would be desirable to add a stronger civil society context to this Organisation. With a greater involvement of women activists, academics, analysts and media personnel, the potential for fighting obscurantism and extremism in our own societies will multiply as groups lend support to governments and other groups across states. So far, the OIC has been devoid of active civil society involvement, which has led to its neglect by the Muslim people at large. For too long, the Muslim World's disunity has worked to the advantage of the major powers. But now this disunity is proving to be debilitating for the Muslim World across national divides. That is why a new awakening is no more an option or a luxury but a matter of survival.



The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Email: [email]smnews80@hotmail.com[/email]
[/B]

A challenge on two fronts
 

[B]By Shireen M Mazari



Somehow it did not come as a surprise to find yet another outburst against Pakistan by an American military man in Afghanistan who reasserted the US's right to violate Pakistan's sovereignty through hot pursuit and bombings, all in the name of "self-defence".

The Foreign Office spokesperson stated she was "surprised" that so much fuss was being made over a statement "by a colonel-level official." However, the surprise is that Pakistan has placed itself in a position where a low ranking official can make such a provocative statement in the first place. Clearly, Pakistan's verbal rejections of these US claims have been paid no heed to by its allies in Afghanistan, with the result that within Pakistan no one is convinced of the government's resolve not to allow these challenges to its sovereignty. Now, such verbal rejoinders, when they are not followed by punitive action against the offending forces that challenge Pakistan's sovereignty, have lost all meaning. The growing perception is that the writ of the government in terms of safeguarding our territorial sovereignty can be challenged at will by US and NATO forces and our citizens can be taken into custody by these forces with no regard for Pakistan's laws or sovereignty -- and certainly no regard for international law, but that has never been an issue for the Bush Administration.

There is now a pattern to such events. First, we have the wrongful action, then its defence by the wrongdoers and finally someone rushes over to try and appease the leadership of Pakistan -- as happened this time round with the hurried visit of Robert Gates. But Gates himself revealed the condescending and abrasive approach the US has towards Pakistan when, having arrived early, he refused to wait for his Pakistani counterpart and instead simply took off to meet the President. Obviously Gates was not concerned about diplomatic niceties regarding Pakistanis!

There are those in Pakistan who actually feel that the Pakistan government should continue making these verbal rejoinders even as the US and NATO continue to violate our sovereignty with impunity, as this is the only way to keep the tribals under pressure and that in any case there is little Pakistan can do in terms of concrete action to stop these incursions. This is dangerous logic because it also sends a message to the Pakistani citizens of the tribal belt that their government can do nothing to protect them from foreign military action on Pakistani soil. This can hardly be conducive to bolstering the writ of the state in these areas -- just when the Pakistani state is trying to open up the area and bring it into the mainstream!

The Pakistan military has to move beyond mere rhetoric and demonstrate its will to defend its territorial integrity in the face of a challenge by US/NATO forces as also by locals seeking to defy the law of the land. So some punitive action has to be undertaken to restore the government's credibility within the domestic polity.

This issue of credibility is very central, especially these days, to ensuring that the writ of the state is not challenged at will through violent means by anyone -- no allied states and no subnational groups. The credibility of the state to ensure that the law of the land is enforced and that our territorial integrity will not be compromised is being seriously eroded not just by the actions of the US and NATO but also by events unfolding domestically.

Take the case of the occupation of the Children's library by students of the Jamia Hafsa. Here was a situation where the law had been clearly violated on two counts at least: One, by the illegal construction of the Madrassah and, two, by the occupation of the library. Yet the state showed a growing temerity in dealing with the law breakers and eventually the latter won a negotiated settlement whereby the state backtracked on its policy of ridding the capital of illegal construction including of mosques and Madrassahs -- a decision supported by the Council of Islamic Ideology which declared such illegally constructed mosques as "un-Islamic." Yet, wielding sticks and probably stashing more lethal weapons, those who sought to challenge the law and the state seemed to have held sway.

From this compromise by the state, what message has gone out to the majority of civil society? That if you can show an ability to threaten to use violence to get your way, you can break the law and have the state negotiate a compromise with you, regardless of the weakness of your case. Contrast this with the way the protest by teachers of the OPF is being ignored by all and sundry. With the state showing no respect to this profession, how can we expect our educational standards to improve? The relevant minister, according to press reports, refused to come out of Parliament to talk to these teachers. Should they also have undertaken a similar occupation a la Jamia Hafsa style to get the state to give them serious attention? And what of the young girl from Sindh and her family who are seeking public redress, to the gang rape inflicted on this minor, in terms of arrests of the rapists? How have the offenders managed to get bail for what is a non-bailable offence? As this poor, grief stricken family mounts a public protest in Karachi, who will pay heed to their legitimate grievance, given that they wield no physical or political power -- only a moral high ground?

The President has correctly stated that idealism cannot prevail in a non-ideal environment and as we know the political-military environment that prevails at any given time in any part of the world is not ideal. But it is in these environments that states have to assert their writ to ensure the safety of civil society and to send a clear cut message to all its citizenry that it will not allow anyone to break the law with impunity and that it will protect the rights of all its citizens and the territorial integrity of the country.

There is a discomfiting similarity between the US/NATO incursions into our territory and their defiant statements, and the actions and statements of the lawbreakers in the Jamia Hafsa incident. Both are challenging and seeking to undermine the writ of the state of Pakistan and in both instances, the state seems to have cowed under -- despite rhetoric to the contrary. Could it be that there is an unholy alliance of aims between the two diverse groups of challengers to the writ of the Pakistani state in order to weaken the state from within?

The religious extremists wish to weaken the state in the hope of establishing their vision of an "Islamic" state -- and the Jamia Hafsa incident has certainly had a negative impact on the standing of the mainstream, moderate religious parties like the Jamaat, within civil society at large -- while the US intent of targeting our nuclear assets indirectly has never been hidden; but both know they must first undermine the authority of the state. Ironically, at one time both these two groups were allies in fighting a jihad against the Soviets and Communism! Is there a covert and unholy alliance once again? After all, stranger things have been known to happen in our world.



The writer is director general of the Institute of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Email: [email]smnews80@hotmail.com[/email]
[/B]

Fitting the ominous pieces together
 

[B]By Shireen M Mazari

The Pakistan-US relationship is revealing its inherent dialectic at an almost spiraling pace. Almost everyday, the US fires a new salvo against Pakistan which has the latter coming out with damage control statements -- which are increasingly becoming meaningless given the almost immediate contradiction in terms of US actions along the international Pakistan-Afghanistan border accompanied by statements from Washington. There is a growing seriousness to the way in which various events are linking up and the pattern could not be clearer. Many of us had been predicting the possibility of an US ingress into Pakistan with the latter's nuclear assets being the long-term target. Also, with US military journals suggesting the redrawing of the borders of the larger Muslim states, Pakistan needs to realise that its tremendous contribution to the war on terror notwithstanding, it would come under increasing US fire and pressure. That is what is now beginning to happen.

By first identifying recent developments, one can then trace out some increasingly obvious patterns. Amongst the important recent developments are:

* The introduction of bills before the US Congress, making aid to Pakistan conditional upon US presidential waivers/certifications on a whole set of issues ranging from nuclear proliferation, terrorism and secularism.

* Following this, US defence officials' statements before the US Congress in which they have claimed that the US has all the authority it needs to indulge in hot pursuit into Pakistani territory. Despite claims to the contrary by the hapless Pakistan Foreign Office, the US has asserted this right by indulging in such actions, including bombing Pakistani territory with all the collateral damage that ensues, and killing or kidnapping Pakistani citizens with impunity. As some of us have been reiterating, for Pakistan verbal claims to the contrary have lost all credibility and it will have to take some symbolic punitive action against all ingresses across the international border into its territory to put to rest US claims of rights over our sovereign territory.

* Even more threatening has been the response to this claim by some US Congressmen who are seeking to advise their government to strike even further into Pakistani territory to attack "munitions' factories". Of course this could be an open-ended action against our strategic assets.

* Then there are US efforts to poison the Pakistan-Iran relationship, to not only undermine the pipeline project but also to destroy any strategic understanding that may evolve between these two important Muslim states. This is an important policy goal for the US, which is also seeking to destabilise Iran covertly through support for the separatist Iranian Baloch movement based in London. The recent spate of terrorist attacks in Sistan (Iranian Balochistan) are part of this covert operation and has led to suspicions in Iran that Pakistan may be allowing the US access for such a nefarious design. While this is totally incorrect, unfortunately perceptions can sometimes create a false reality, which has a dangerous multiplier effect. Iran needs to realise that Pakistan has its own problems vis-a-vis the BLA and the US, since the latter, most questionably, has refused so far to declare the former a terrorist organisation despite Britain having done so. Interestingly enough, the EU has also not done the needful and Pakistan needs to question US and EU long-term intent towards Pakistan.

* The stationing of US naval strike forces in close proximity to Pakistan's coastal waters and commercial routes -- again a form of pressure through a threat of use of force which such positioning implies.

* There is also the "coincidental" EU action aimed at undermining Pakistan's trade by closing access to EU markets through a refusal to sign an FTA with Pakistan while seeking one with India. The timing is certainly interesting.

* Finally, there is the use of Pakistani writers, along with US and European media persons, to orchestrate the imagined links that still prevail between religious extremists and segments of the Pakistan military! This, of course, not only bolsters suspicions about the Pakistan military abroad, it also seeks to create cleavages between the military and civil society in Pakistan, as well as within the military itself. It is in this context that one can view the recent international and now Pakistani launch of Zahid Hussain's book "Frontline Pakistan". To create credibility it was first feted in Britain -- since we still maintain a colonial hang-up in terms of giving more credence to all things foreign. The usual commentators praised the work -- Seymour Hersh and Ahmed Rashid, the doyenne of the West in terms of his histrionics about Talibanisation and Islamic extremism. One had hoped that Zahid would rise above his desire to play to the Western gallery, but it seems the temptations are simply too great.

Despite claims to the contrary, the book shows little signs of serious research and relies a great deal on his earlier columns. Since he is unable to identify most of his crucial "exclusive interviews", one cannot be blamed for assuming that many of these may be figments of his own imagination since the book is full of contradictions. He cannot decide whether to praise President Musharraf for being a "moderate and pragmatic" man who took on the extremists, or condemn him as being a "doyen of the jihadists and their allies". In fact, this contradiction regarding his assessment of President Musharraf runs right through the book as does his confusion over whether there is an imminent threat or not to Pakistan from the extremists. Some absurdities also abound such as a claim that people in shalwar kameez stand out as Pakistanis in Jalalabad! The book has many such contradictions and factual confusions, but that will not matter to the Western audience which is the prime target for the book. Unfortunately, like some others in this land, as Ayaz Amir pointed out last week, in our rush to curry favour with the US and Europe we pay scant regard to intellectual honesty. After all, we can disagree on the notion of national interest, but let us be honest to ourselves at least.

So one can see the pattern that is being enforced by the US and its allies within and outside of Pakistan: Discredit and pressure Pakistan on all fronts -– including undermining its relations with Iran -– while fomenting dissent from within through Pakistani sources. That is why there is a growing confluence between statements and actions coming out of Washington, US forces and from Europe -– and what is actually happening on the ground in the triangle of Pakistan-Iran-Afghanistan.

What is the desired end result? To undermine Pakistan politically and militarily within the region, and eventually target its strategic assets, so as to create a permanently compliant Pakistani state which allows the targeting of other powerful Muslim states of this region. Pakistan has always been seen as a spoiler by the West because of its commitment to Muslim causes and its self-belief and innate confidence that it matters -– regardless of the problems that may beset it at any given time. That is why we were able to achieve our nuclear capability –- against all odds. That is not acceptable to the US and its allies in the emerging global environment. So the increasingly overt threats and negative policies targeting Pakistan even while the latter is expected to continue being the frontline state in the war on terror.

[/B]

Confronting neo-imperialism
 

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Confronting neo-imperialism
By Shireen M Mazari[/COLOR][/B]

Dated: 28 March 2007


Iran seems to be capturing headlines on a number of issues -- but underlying them all is the strong sense of Iranian nationalism and commitment to defending its sovereignty. This has not sat easy with the US and Europe, at a time when there is a resurgence of a neo-imperial mindset within these states. Take the incident of the British sailors arrested by Iran in its territorial waters. This is not the first time that this has happened. In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were taken into custody by Iran after they had ventured into Iranian territorial waters in the narrow Shatt al-Arab waterway.

To hear the British media and government it would appear as if Iran had done something illegal but the fact is that it is Iran's right to protect its territorial waters especially against threatening vessels which UK naval vessels are, given the military build up in the Persian Gulf and the warlike posturing by the US and its British ally in the coalition of the willing that invaded Iraq. Not for one moment did the British contemplate that their sailors could have strayed or deliberately gone into Iranian waters -- after all the British cannot make such mistakes, despite historical record to the contrary. There is an arrogance that smacks of imperialism in the way the British have been demanding the sailors' release instead of an admission that their men could be in the wrong. As for Iran, are they adopting too uncompromising a posture? Not when one sees how the US is building up its naval strike forces in the Gulf -- and not when one sees the Iran nuclear issue in the UNSC with resolutions imposing sanctions. North Korea, which defied international law and opted out of its NPT commitments, was dealt with in a more conciliatory fashion with dialogue as the preferred option -- through the device of the six-party talks. Why can't a similar model be created for dialogue with Iran, which has not opted out of the NPT and still seeks to deal with the nuclear issue within the IAEA rather than the UNSC's politicised framework? Perhaps because Iran is a Muslim state, and one which has expanded its regional influence to challenge the US and Israel?

In any event, within this milieu, Iran's "hard line" is understandable especially in the context of the British sailors because Iran has experienced an earlier trauma when the US guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shot down a civilian Iranian airplane on a regular flight to Dubai -- Iran Air Flight 655 -- killing 290 innocent people, including 66 children. At the time, the Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters, but such niceties of international law that maintain a semblance of order in a system of sovereign states are hardly a matter of concern for the US, which seems to regard collateral damage in terms of foreign civilian lives as a mere statistic.

In the present scenario relating to the arrested British sailors, what is equally disturbing is the manner in which the EU has also demanded that Iran release the British sailors immediately. Surely, they should first verify the situation because if the Iranian position is correct, then its actions are justifiable. Instead, the EU has adopted a rather imperial tone in the manner in which it addressed the sovereign state of Iran. But then there is a resurgence of imperialism presently and countries like Pakistan and Iran are being targeted. In the case of Pakistan, we have been told that our market is too small for the EU to sign a Free Trade Agreement, which they are seeking with India, but they are not prepared to give us the exemptions given to states like Bangladesh. So we are in a lose-lose situation on this count. On the political front also, the EU Parliament allowed the founding member of its Friends of India to become the Rapporteur on Kashmir and present a highly biased and in places absurd report on this conflict. Notwithstanding the revelation of Pakistan and the Kashmiris' limited diplomatic-political abilities, the final product from Emma Nicholson could not have been otherwise but that the EU Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee found this acceptable makes one wonder what the EU's intent is towards this region.

However, perhaps the starkest reflection of the rising tide of US-EU neo-imperialism has been the taking over of the ISAF command in Afghanistan by NATO, in 2003. Although we are told ad nauseam that NATO's presence in Afghanistan has UN legitimacy but the record shows otherwise. The UNSC, through Resolution 1386 of December 2001, sanctioned the International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan (ISAF). As stipulated in the Bonn Agreement of December 2001, the progressive expansion of the ISAF mandate was approved through follow-on UNSC resolutions.

So how did NATO get into ISAF? Did the UNSC initiate NATO's involvement or did NATO present a fait accompli to the UN Secretary General. What is available on record is that NATO's Secretary General informed the UN Secretary General, through a letter dated 2 October 2003, that on 11 August 2003 NATO had assumed "strategic command, control and coordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)." This was followed by another letter from the NATO SG to the UN SG informing the latter of the North Atlantic Council's agreement on a "longer-term strategy for NATO in its International Assistance Force (ISAF) role in Afghanistan. These communications were forwarded to the UNSC. So effectively NATO presented the UNSC with a fait accompli.

It was in the face of these developments that the UNSC passed Resolution 1510 on 13 October 2003 in which it acknowledged the 6 October NATO SG's letter as well as communication from the Afghan Minister for Foreign Affairs and authorised the expansion of the ISAF mandate. But nowhere is there any reference to NATO's role in Afghanistan. So is NATO really in Afghanistan because of UNSC resolutions or because its members, through their North Atlantic Council decided to get a new foothold in Asia?

Given the continuing European-Atlantic membership of NATO, its operations can only be legitimate in the area of its membership -- and that also require a UNSC authorisation -- except in the case of collective self-defence as defined by Article 5 of the NATO Charter. The North Atlantic Council may have decided to expand NATO's vision and operational area but this does not legitimise, internationally, out-of-area operations. That NATO has the military capability while the UN may be lacking this is not the issue here, since one is focusing on the question of international legitimacy. In any case, the UN can be given more teeth if the members are prepared to do so and make effective Articles 43-47 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, including the provisions relating to the creation of a Military Staff Committee.

Meanwhile, effectively we now have Europeans and Atlantic states making decisions relating to the Asian region and this has far reaching consequences for all Asian states in the long run. If this is not neo-imperialism, then what is?

Hitting rock bottom
 

[B][SIZE="4"][COLOR="Red"]Hitting rock bottom
By Shireen M Mazari [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]

Dated: 21 March 2007

We have hit rock bottom at all levels -- from the political to the sports field. And it appears that only a non-Pakistani, the late Bob Woolmer felt the shame strongly enough to suffer an untimely death. But let us begin with the horror of the physical abuse of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, the chasm between the actual restrictions that continued to persist regarding his person and his family and the official disclaimers to the contrary. In all this, the sight of those who are supposed to uphold the law and protect the citizens actually mauling the Chief Justice and his wife revealed the sorry state of the law enforcement bureaucracy. Violence is clearly endemic in them and certainly no ordinary citizen will feel safe now -- the little that they may have done so earlier. But what has been the state's response? A few inquiries but no rolling of the heads yet. Not that that should have been needed in the first place. Surely the shame of this incidence should have compelled the senior Islamabad police officials and interior minister to have resigned out of a sense of basic decency. Instead, no expression of regret was even heard from these folk.

As if the physical abuse of the CJ was not enough of a national disgrace, we saw the police run amok in what was clearly a pre-planned and officially ordered -- at what level is the real question -- assault on the Geo and The News offices. The apology from the President was a gracious gesture and the rush to the scene of the crime by the information minister and a day later by the prime minister was a clear reflection of their desire to disassociate from this ugly incident. But then there is the glaring question of who ordered the attack, because it was clearly on the orders of someone? Are there people who can order such violence with the top leadership not only kept in total ignorance but also damaged considerably? It is unbelievable to now be told that the top cop involved in the attack has disappeared!

The violence perpetrated by the police certainly has had an impact. After all, the ordinary person can now see how threatened he is at the hands of the very people who are paid out of taxpayer money to protect him/her. The fear that is being spread across the land with regard to police violence seems to be a deliberate policy. After all, it was not just Geo that suffered at the hands of the Punjab police. The Lahore High Court building was a target also, with lawyers earning the wrath of a police force that has obviously gone mad. We know the brutal reputation of the police in terms of blackmail, harassment, corruption and so on -- but seeing them with rocks and sticks initiating violence is a terrible sight. What was the difference between the police on rampage in Islamabad and Lahore and the lawbreakers who hold the government to ransom with the power of lethal sticks?

Of course, no force is used against such lawbreakers. Instead all the force is reserved for those who seek to peacefully protest or those who seek to fulfil their mandate of reporting such protest. What a place we live in. Certainly enlightenment and moderation have no place within our law enforcement set up. And no heads have rolled in the Geo case either -- although in any civilised and decent society, the interior and information ministers would have resigned. In this context, the less one says of the law minister, the better since his violence and abusiveness is becoming legendary. Never mind the ridicule that that brings upon this poor country.

Talking of resignations, it was a pleasant surprise to see the PCB chairman offering his resignation after the cricket fiasco the Pakistani nation has had to undergo. But why did the good doctor take up a position for which he was clearly not suited? As for the team, clearly the selectors played favourites and we got the results the state deserved – but not the nation which is starved for heroes and asks very little from them. Inzimam has resigned from ODIs, but he needs to be removed altogether. With others of his ilk, he is now focused more on proselytising for the faith and that is admirable but then he must leave cricket to those fully committed to it. Why are we not able to have professional set ups for professional tasks? No sporting great has a say in any of our sports boards which are run on personal whims and fancies. That is why we have hit rock bottom in squash, hockey and cricket -- not to mention the sorry state of other sports like tennis. It is not that the talent is lacking; it is simply our refusal to have professionals run things. Instead, retired bureaucrats, of both varieties, are seen as the answer to all our ills -- quite forgetting that they are probably responsible for these ills in the first place.

Nor is it just sports. Look at what we have done to our national carrier -- PIA. Once known as a leader in its field, we have managed to reduce it to the bottom of the heap, with the EU ban being the final insult. Despite the loyalty of the ordinary Pakistani, especially from the diaspora, who continues to fly the national carrier out of choice, those managing this "golden egg" have continued to let things rot. Perhaps it is a deliberate ploy to allow its sale to some Gulf enterprise -- and we would not know the Indian component in such an enterprise -- but it is reflective of the sorry state of affairs we confront today.

We allow external powers to abuse us at will while the state abuses the nation in a similar fashion. There is nothing new in what has been happening recently to what happened with the so-called democratic civil set ups earlier. The judiciary and media were targeted then, as they are now. The US abused us then and it is doing so today. Pressler dictated US policy towards Pakistan for decades and now we are seeing a replay of this with the US Senate having passed a bill which will make aid to Pakistan conditional on Presidential certification. The House had already passed this bill and the issues on which certification of compliance has to be given range from nuclear-related issues and the GoP's commitment to secular public schools.

Even as we hit rock bottom on all fronts, there is a resignation in the face of events. After all, will we never see things changing? Every time hopes are raised and then they come to naught. There was a glimmer of hope before the 2002 elections on many fronts, but post the elections it seems to have become "business as usual". Are we destined to suffer through repetitive cycles despite our many developed strengths and despite a most passionate nation? What have we done to suffer those who bring disrepute to the state and nation and those who use violence against those they are meant to protect? Who will be the first to accept collective responsibility for state institutions going awry?