Only democracy can break
Pakistan terror link

Benazir Bhutto

To some, the disquieting pattern of the link between terrorist plots, attacks against the West and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan may seem irrelevant and coincidental.
   To me, the pattern is sadly relevant, a direct consequence of the West allowing Pakistani military regimes to suppress the democratic aspirations of the people of Pakistan as long as their dictators ostensibly supported the political goals of the international community.
   In the late 1970s, the democratically elected government of Pakistan, led by my father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was toppled by a coup led by General Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, then the army's chief of staff. At first, the international community demanded a restoration of democracy and the holding of free and fair elections. Zia, once he proclaimed himself President, promised elections in 90 days, and then in another 90 days, and then in a year.
   The West expressed frustration and impatience, but shortly after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the calls for a return to democracy in Pakistan subsided, as the United States saw an opportunity to use events in Southwest Asia to hobble the Soviet Union.
   
   U.S. aid for Mujahideen
   The U.S. funneled aid and training of the fundamentalist Mujahideen through Pakistan, and specifically through the Pakistani military intelligence agencies that Zia had created to cement his iron rule.
   This alliance not only brought modern weapons and technology to the Mujahideen, but converted my homeland from a peaceful nation into a violent society of Kalashnikov weapons, heroin addiction and a radicalised interpretation of Islam. The streets of Karachi were given over to guns and kidnapping. And the diversion of resources away from the social sector to the military caused rippling consequences in Pakistani society.
   As the government relinquished its responsibility in education, health, housing and social services, the people looked elsewhere for support. The clearest manifestation of this pattern was the spread of political madrassas across Pakistan.
   These schools exploited the name of Islam to teach a radical and intolerant message with paramilitary-type training given to the students. They became the breeding ground for hatred, xenophobia extremism, militancy and terrorism.
   Once the Soviets left Afghanistan, the West abandoned democracy in Afghanistan, leaving behind the most radical elements of the Mujahideen. Pakistan and Afghanistan became the sources of a political and religious extremist movement that morphed into the Taliban and later Al-Qaeda.
   Jamaat-ud-Dawa, the new breed of hybrid charitable/terrorist organisation, may have - according to current press reports - used the political madrassas model to channel funds ostensibly for Pakistani earthquake relief to the plotters of the terrorist scheme revealed last week to down commercial jets over the Atlantic.
   Tragically, two decades after the Zia coup against democracy in Pakistan, another army chief of staff conducted another coup against a civilian government. Still in power today, the Pakistani dictator, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has played the West like a fiddle, dispensing occasional calculated but ultimately disingenuous support in the global war on terror, thus keeping America and Britain off his political back as he proceeded to arrest and exile opposition leaders, decimate political parties, pressurise the press, and set back the causes of human rights and women's rights in Pakistan by a full generation.
   The Musharraf regime, claiming that sections of the Pakistani frontier were ungovernable, has relinquished responsibility there to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. It is not surprising that Osama bin Laden, a man who funneled money to overthrow my government, has not been intercepted. He releases taped messages with impunity under the nose of the Pakistani military dictatorship protected by military hardliners and militant groups in the tribal areas of Waziristan that the Musharraf regime has failed to control.
   The notion that these large blocks of Pakistan are ungovernable is nonsense. During both of my tenures as Prime Minister, my government enforced the writ of the state through the civil administration and paramilitary troops.
   The Musharraf dictatorship doles out ostensible support in the war on terror, one spoonful as needed, to keep it in the good graces of Washington, while it presides over a society that simultaneously fuels and empowers militants at the expense of moderates. And the dangerous political madrassas, which I spent years as Prime Minister dismantling, now flourish and grow under Islamabad's military dictatorship.
   Why is it that the terrorist trail always seems to lead back to Pakistan? Why is it that second-generation Pakistani émigrés all over the world are far more attracted by this pattern of terrorism than other disillusioned Muslims in the West? What is it about Islamabad in particular that puts it in the centre of terrorist plots - from Leeds to London, conspiracies against planes, against buses, against trains and, above all, against innocent people?
   I suggest that political systems create particular responses in its civilians. In a military dictatorship, power flows through the gun rather than through law. For decades, the message sent to Pakistani youth through repeated military interventions has been that might makes right.
   The West, by supporting Pakistani military dictatorships' suppression of the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people, has enabled the dictatorships to permeate this message amongst new generations of Muslim youth.
   Further, the use of radical institutions to superficially address some social needs is the key to understanding the increasingly clear pattern that links Islamabad to terror-related incidents.
   Democracies do not go to war with other democracies. Democratic governments do not empower, protect and harbour terrorists. Democratic societies largely produce citizens that understand the importance of law, diversity and tolerance. A democratic Pakistan, free from the yoke of military dictatorship, would cease to be the petri dish of the pandemic of international terrorism.
   - SAN-Feature Service Courtesy: Global Viewpoint
   Benazir Bhutto was the Prime Minister of Pakistan from 1988-1990 and from 1993-1996 and is the leader of the Opposition Pakistan People's Party.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

The desert winds

Nasrine R Karim

According to the Los Angeles Times, about 45 per cent of the hundreds of foreign militants involved in attacks on US troops, Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia. Another 15 per cent are from Syria and Lebanon and 10 per cent from North Africa. Nearly half the 135 foreigners currently held in US detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis!
   
   Terrifying truth
   How is Mr. Bush going to face this appalling nightmarish truth? His administration has been demonising Iran as the mastermind behind the insurgency in Iraq. An American military officer told the newspaper that Saudis are believed to have carried out more suicide bombings in Iraq than those of any other nationality. He estimated that half of all Saudi "jihadists" come to Iraq as suicide bombers, who in the past six months have been responsible for killing and maiming at least 4,000 Iraqis. As the Los Angeles Times [LA Times] explained, "The situation has left the US military (and one could add, the Bush administration) in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against US forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad."
   Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman General Mansour Turki insisted that Saudi Arabia was doing "everything possible" to end the flow of Saudi fighters, arms and money to Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq. Blaming the Iraqi government for not providing information, he said, "We have no idea who these people are... If we get good feedback from the Iraqi government about Saudis arrested in Iraq, probably we can help."
   The senior US officer, however, dismissed the response, saying, "Are the Saudis using all means possible? Of course not... It needs to be addressed by the government of Iraq head on. They have every right to stand up to a country like Saudi Arabia and say, 'Hey, you are killing thousands of people by allowing your young jihadists to come here and associate themselves with an illegal worldwide network called Al Qaeda'."
   How American is that? Why would Saudi Arabia allow the Shi-ites have the upper hand in Iraq? Anyone who stopped thinking like a foreigner would understand this basic question.
   
   Studied silence
   As for the Bush administration, it maintains a studied silence on the issue while continuing its campaign against "Iranian interference" in Iraq. While the US dismisses Tehran's denials of involvement out of hand, Riyadh's claims to be stopping Saudi support for Iraqi insurgents are tacitly accepted as good coin. The White House and the State Department refused to comment to the Los Angeles Times.
   The figures given by the LA Times are not new. On June 20th, msnbc.com posted an analysis of articles on Islamist websites celebrating the deaths of foreign fighters in Iraq over the past two years. Of more than 400 militants who had died in Iraq, 55 per cent came from Saudi Arabia, 13 per cent from Syria, 9 per cent from North Africa and 3 per cent from Europe. The US military confirmed to MSNBC.com that Saudi Arabia and Syria were the leading sources of insurgents.
   The New York Times published a major statement on the war in Iraq in July. Running the entire length of the newspaper's editorial page, the statement was clearly conceived of as a definitive pronouncement on the failure of the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq.
   
   US exit
   The editorial expressed the enormity of the crisis facing the US rulers. In its own way, the statement acknowledges that what was intended to be a demonstration of American might-the conquest of Iraq-has dealt a shattering blow to the US drive for global hegemony. Exuding a sense of hopelessness and despair, the editorial expressed the perplexity of the US political establishment in the face of a catastrophe of its own making. Its title, "The Road Home," the statement reveals the sombre assertion: "It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit."
   It continues: "Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward."
   The Times editorial paints a picture of devastation and chaos in Iraq and recklessness, irresponsibility and criminality in the highest echelons of the US government that amounts to a colossal indictment of not only the Bush administration, but the entire political and media establishment of which the Times is a part.
   If US foreign policy were at all consistent, the White House and the Pentagon would now be condemning Riyadh for the possible support of insurgents in Iraq and demanding action to halt the flow of Saudi fighters. The US militarists would be demanding, "regime change" and Bush would be declaring that "all options were on the table"-including the bombing of Riyadh. However, this not to be or is likely to happen. This again demonstrates that the US accusations against Tehran are simply pretexts used to justify possible military action against Iran for its alleged status as a "rogue" nation, while key allies such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan get away scot-free.
   The US invasion of Iraq has profoundly destabilised the region, inflaming rivalries and sectarian tensions. Saudi Arabia, which reluctantly supported the US invasion of Iraq, regarded the Saddam Hussein regime as a bulwark against Iran, its traditional rival in the Persian Gulf. Riyadh is deeply hostile to the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, which it regards as little more than a proxy for Iran. Saudi King Abdullah and other top officials have pointedly snubbed Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on several occasions to demonstrate their hostility.
   Last November, in the wake of the Democratic victory in mid-term US elections, King Abdullah reportedly told Vice President Dick Cheney that his regime would be compelled to intervene in Iraq on the side of Sunni insurgent groups against the Maliki government if US troops were pulled out.
   
   Weapons etc
   The Washington Post reported last November that the Saudi Security Adviser Nawaf Obaid had warned of Saudi intervention, noting: "Over the past year, a chorus of voices has called for Saudi Arabia to protect the Sunni community in Iraq and thwart Iranian influence there. Senior Iraqi tribal and religious figures, along with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and other Arab and Muslim countries, have petitioned the Saudi leadership to provide Iraqi Sunnis with weapons and financial support.
   
   Muscular role
   Moreover, domestic pressure to intervene is intense. Major Saudi tribal confederations, which have extremely close historical and communal ties with their counterparts in Iraq, are demanding action. They are supported by a new generation of Saudi royals in strategic government positions who are eager to see the kingdom play a more muscular role in the region."
   The penultimate paragraph of the New York Times editorial was: "President Bush and Vice President Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans' demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened-the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war."
   
   Beyond control
   "Incompetence" is perhaps a gross understatement. The catastrophic situation in the Middle East is beyond the control of any US administration now. Although the Saudi monarchy really cannot afford to alienate the Bush administration by openly supporting Sunni insurgents in Iraq, it also cannot afford to stay quietly distant and burn their own fire of political insurgency within. In comments to the Los Angeles Times, Iraqi Shiite legislator Sami Askari, one of Maliki's advisers, accused Saudi officials of deliberately sowing chaos in Baghdad and funding groups causing unrest in the country's Shiite south.
   If Iran does get the upper hand because of Mr. Bush's incompetence, then he will have burnt the last oil well in his favour. After all, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda were the creation of the 1980s "holy war" jointly backed by the CIA, Saudi and Pakistani intelligence against the Soviet-backed regime in Afghanistan. This time they are all Sunnis, including Syria. So now Iraq has to thank Mr. Bush for regional confrontation which underscores the reckless and incoherent character of his policies which instigated Sunni insurgents, Shiite insurgents, general nationalists who want foreigners out and of course, the Kurds who want their free, sovereign state. All this in the name of liberation of Iraq! AND Saddam lost his head!

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Barrister Harun ur Rashid

China's political and economic influence in South East Asia has been on the increase in recent years. The anti-Communist ASEAN countries are not hesitant to be friendly with China. Gone are the days when China was seen as the exporter of Communism into the countries of the region. The first breakthrough happened in 1955 when Afro-Asian leaders invited China to the Bandung Conference in which China's Prime Minister Zou en-Lai attended.
   Currently China has cut out a bigger and benign influence over the region. The balance of power in the area is changing in the sense that within decades the US may lose it supremacy in the region.
   
   The question is: why?
   There are several reasons and some of them deserve mention in the following paragraphs:
   First, China's bilateral trade has increased with all the countries in the region. Investment pours in from China in the shape of joint venture. Chinese model of capitalism tempered with state control has taken China to a new height of success. China is rewriting the script in rapid economic growth. The changes are huge and are reverberated in the region. South East Asian countries look enviously at China's economic success. A visit to the Capital Beijing and Shanghai confirms that life is good for most of the urban Chinese.
   Second, investors of the region are keeping an eye on the areas of the world whose share of world economic product will be rising such as China. China is expected to grow more than 8 per cent per year and increase substantially its share of world gross domestic product. A new paradigm in world economic growth has emerged with China contributing to a much faster growth path in the decade or so up to 2025.
   Third, China does not spread its political ideology in South East Asia. Its policy of non-interference in domestic affairs has put China on a good standing with these countries. China's quest for stabilising influence in the region is welcome by ASEAN. That is why ASEAN has entered into a strategic partnership with China, to the annoyance of the US.
   Fourth, China has increasingly demonstrated its interests in world affairs in the UN. China no longer criticises the activities of international agencies as before. China has become a responsible player and has sent its troops to UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon. It is getting involved in stabilising peaceful order.
   Fifth and finally, ASEAN nations find the unbridled pursuit of self-interest and self-indulgence of the Bush administration in its foreign policy as detrimental to peaceful world order. Instability hurts economy and therefore the wrong agenda set out by the Bush administration does not find resonance in ASEAN countries. In contrast China's use of soft power in the region is very effective.
   
   Other factors
   There have always been rules governing the relationship between states but these rules could always be broken by the use of superior force. There has never been a world so chaotic and confused as is the current one. Insecurity reigns from Beirut to Tehran as to what the US's policy and actions are. The idea of the US neocons that there is no world order other than use of force is a gross fallacy and a misinterpretation of power.
   Furthermore, the ideology of American supremacy found expression in the Bush doctrine incorporated in the National Security Report of 2002. Its two main threads held that the US must maintain absolute military superiority in every part of the world and that the US has the right to preemptive military action.
   The world cannot be ruled by military force. Military power is only one of many ingredients that a country needs to exercise influence over others. In the past imperial powers did not succeed by the force of arms alone. The US did not become the super power by military means. Victory in the Second World War was followed by the establishment of the UN for collective security and peaceful world order.
   China in this regard is perceived as a nation among developing countries that does not show arrogance of power. It is not the use of hard power that gives influence but the use of soft power in winning hearts and minds of people in other countries. China and EU have been using soft power with other countries including ASEAN.
   It appears that the world in the 21st century is confronted with a dangerous mix of extremism, unilateralism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, shortage of global energy and scarcity in availability of fresh water with another 1.5 billion on earth by 2025 loom large for all the countries across the world. Against this background, China's role appears to be crucial indeed for the region.
   The writer is a former Bangladesh ambassador to the UN, Geneva.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE