The myth of independence

“ABSOLUTE power is heady wine”, Churchill told Major General Templer. “Use it sparingly”. “High rank can be very dangerous”, said Pangloss, “all the philosophers say so”. Candid. Gazing out beyond the Alps, toward Austria, the Fuhrer declared: “Kommt Unter die Rader — who is not with me will be crushed”. Austria was too weak to defend itself and was all alone, as Afghanistan is today.

Long after these chilling words were uttered,President Bush said in reaffirming the frighteningly wide thrust that is being given to the anti-terror campaign. “America has a message for the nations of the world. If you harbour terrorists, you are terrorist. If you arm or train a terrorist, you are terrorist. If you feed a terrorist or fund a terrorist, you are terrorist, and you will be held accountable by the US”.

In the eyes of a global audience , his remarks were remarkable for their insensitivity, bordering on blithe unawareness, to international concerns. And to remove any misconception in the minds of some gullible Pakistanis, the US Ambassador in India, Robert Blackwill, told reporters in New Delhi: “a terrorist is a terrorist. They are not freedom fighters”. No wonder there is such a hush among the Muslim countries, while they are wondering which one is going to be “liberated” next.

What is meant by terrorism and who is a terrorist? The participants in the discussion of this subject in the UN got bogged down immediately. They could not define terrorism and did not know how to identify a terrorist. It was like the Supreme Court Justice quoted once as saying that he could not define pornography but he knew it when he saw it. Terrorism, they say, is like an elephant on your doorstep. You recognize it when you see it.

Be that as it may, while the search for an acceptable definition of terrorism and terrorist continues, President George W. Bush has signed an order allowing special military tribunals to try foreigners charged with terrorism. “Such tribunals would not necessarily be public” and “might operate in Pakistan and Afghanistan”. Under the order, the president himself is to determine who is a terrorist and therefore subject to trial by the tribunal. These tribunals would limit a defendant’s rights even more severely than a military trial.

They do not require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and would not require strict rule of evidence like those in military and civilian courts. The accused in such a court would have dramatically fewer rights than a person would in a court-martial. The order establishes a court that departs in important respects from core aspects of American criminal justice.

Mr Bush has, in effect, established an Imperial Presidency, and acquired a dominance over American government rivalling even Franklin Roosevelt’s command. Henceforth, a single individual in Washington is going to decide whether a foreign national at the far end of the globe is a terrorist or not. And an American kangaroo court set up in Pakistan or Afghanistan will decide whether he has to live or die. This is outrageous. This is preposterous. It is plainly illegal in terms of international law, recent UN Resolutions notwithstanding. It is corrosive of civil liberties and democracy in the US.

Americans can do what they like in America. They may set up military courts or military tribunals in their country and hang people, guilty or innocent, but why on Pakistan soil? Why has Pakistan been chosen for this dubious distinction? Does it have the approval of our government? Or was the approval of our government taken for granted? Will these tribunals be subject to the jurisdiction of our superior courts? Or has the jurisdiction of our courts been eliminated? And how is the establishment of foreign military tribunals on our soil consistent with our sovereignty? The people of Pakistan are entitled to raise such questions and demand their answers.

Theodore Roosevelt once told a story that illustrates the current American folly of being too eager to inflict punishment on persons suspected of terrorism. The story concerned a group of cowboys who apprehended a man they suspected of being a horse thief. In the Old West, this was a capital offence and the cowboys quickly strung the man up. Shortly thereafter, they learned that another man had confessed to the crime. The cowboys designated the most tactful among them to inform the widow of the man mistakenly hanged. He knocked on the door of the cabin and when the man’s widow appeared, he solemnly removed his hat and said “Ma’am, we hanged your husband as a horse thief but after we were finished we got word that somebody else did it. I guess the joke is on us”.

As it was with the cowboys, so it is with contemporary American leadership’s urge to kill those accused, but not convicted, of terrorism (whatever that means) as quickly as possible. But the grim joke is on those who will suffer for crimes they did not commit.

In the best-selling children’s series about Harry Potter, there is a character so disturbing that Harry Potter’s friends refer to him only as “He who must not be mentioned” — as if pronouncing the name “Voldemort” would somehow solidify the demon’s existence. Osama bin Laden is clearly President Bush’s Voldemort. He wants Osama’s head more than anything else.

“Remember”, Napoleon told his aides, “the words of a Roman Emperor: a dead enemy always smells sweet”. Dead men they say do not bite. But who is naive enough to think the possible capture of Osama, dead or alive, will do more than satisfy the need for someone to punish? One man, one martyr, and thousands more to take his place. It won’t end with the killing of Osama because it is with an armed doctrine that America is at war.

A fundamental belief held by the Americans is that if you are on land, you cannot be killed by a fish. So most Americans remain on land, believing they are safe. Unfortunately, this belief — like so many myths — is false. Nobody can justify the terrible human tragedy in which thousands of innocent men and women lost their lives. We understand America’s anger and we share its grief and pain. But why must America let its need for revenge blur its judgment, for the rage of a wounded giant can be irrational, its direction unpredictable.

What is the justification for the relentless bombing of the poor, hungry, starving, defenceless people of Afghanistan? It reminds me of an ancient Chinese saying: “killing a chicken to scare the monkeys” (occasionally singling out a suspect for severe punishment as a warning to others). The tragic drama being enacted in Afghanistan has made it abundantly clear that the independence of Third World countries is a myth and an illusion.

Basically, what the Americans are demanding the world is to do it their way — or else; that it is their duty to remake themselves in the American image. One message is crystal clear. Don’t mess with America unless you are a permanent member of the Security Council or allied with one, as Burma and North Korea are with China, or you possess nuclear weapons and, what is more important, you have the will and courage to use them in defence of your independence and national sovereignty. The lesson of history is that individuals and nations who do not know how to die, do not know how to live. Only where there are graves are there resurrections.

The US war in Afghanistan came under scathing attack from Prof Chomsky in his lecture in Islamabad a few days ago. The two-hour lecture was followed by a question — answer session. I asked Chomsky what was his advice to the poor, hungry, starving, defenceless, innocent Afghans, subjected to relentless bombing by the sole surviving superpower in the world? Why had the entire world ganged up against them? Why was there no moral outrage and why was the intellectual community keeping so quiet? Prof Chomsky condemned the bombing and said, in effect, “what advice can I give? What can I say? People who should raise their voice are in the employ of the rich and the powerful” or words to that effect.

Pakistan has lapsed into languor, a spiritless lassitude. A sense of guilt, shame, danger and anxiety hangs over the country like a pall. It appears as if we are on a phantom train that is gathering momentum and we cannot get off. Today Pakistan is a silent, mournful land where few people talk of the distant future and most live from day to day. They see themselves as ordinary and unimportant, their suffering too common to be noted and prefer to bury their pain.

Pakistan is in a deep, deep, hole. When will it follow the first rule of holes? When you are in a hole, stop digging. Unfortunately the hole Pakistan has dug itself into is really, really, deep. The problem for us is that you feel you are in a hole and you want to get out, and you hear all those noises, and all that activity, but you feel very much alone, with no one out there really wanting to stretch back to you and help you out. The country suffers from a malignant disease, but people think it is just a cold, so they continue taking small does of medicine and wonder why it still hurts.

These days I feel like a fallen leaf blown by a gale raging outside. There is the end of the vision, of the hope, of the dream. Nothing seems to work. Speaking for myself, the moment I hear Mr Jinnah’s voice, I am smitten by a kind of sacred rage, and my heart jumps into my mouth and tears start gathering into my eyes — Oh, and not only me, but lots of other men. This is not the country I opted for in the referendum held in my home province in 1947. It has changed beyond all recognition in more ways than one. I badly want a Pakistan to defend, a nation I can belong to fight for and die for.

The dawns are always spectacular on the vast South Asian subcontinent. But false dawns abound as well. When we see the sun coming, let us hope it is really rising, and if it is, let us do our part to keep it up there.

Musharraf reins in militants: Letter from New Delhi

THERE is glee in our response to Pakistan‘s travails. We were happy when it was described as a failed state. Not to sound prejudiced, we argued that it was not our assessment but that of the West as if anything coming from it was gospel truth. Our bias was clear and we waited for the collapse of Pakistan under the weight of its economic difficulties.

More recently, after the September 11 carnage, we enjoyed Pakistan’s chagrin while standing behind America and jettisoning the Taliban, their own creation. That Islamabad lost face was apparent. It is proved beyond doubt that the ISI trained, armed and guided the Taliban and that the Pakistani troops and officers fought along with them till the last minute. But we failed to recognize the change in the Islamabad policy.

It is clear that Pakistan took a U-turn when it found it had no option except to avow support to America. All that Islamabad had built collapsed like a house of cards n a few days. It realized that its policy on Afghanistan was flawed. The policy-makers who saw Afghanistan giving Pakistan its much-needed strategic depth was found to be ambitious and unrealistic. General Pervez Musharraf justified the new policy in the best national interest which was motivated by the concerns of security. He may sound opportunist but he has to stay on the good books of mighty Washington.

We refused to see how crestfallen was the government in Islamabad. Nor did we gauge the disillusionment of the people of Pakistan. We were on our ego trip: not to give an inch to Islamabad. There is no doubt that the Pakistan president faced the fact. At least, he did it knowing that public opinion in his country was anti-America. It was a personal risk he took. It has paid off so far.

Our efforts, on the other hand, were concentrated on creating bad blood between America and Pakistan. We could not accept the position of not being asked when we had offered all our support within one hour of the September 11 happenings. How could Washington woo Islamabad, whose complicity with the Taliban was beyond doubt? We went on telling the world that a dictatorship was being preferred to a democratic state. Probably, it was not that black or white. Probably America had no choice. Probably it chose Pakistan because it has a long border with Afghanistan.

Pakistan, a frontline state, was also an ideal place to launch any action against Afghanistan. Islamabad opened airports and other places to help American and British soldiers enter Afghanistan. America could conduct bombardment from naval ships as it did. But the land was needed for ground operations. India is not so geographically situated as to give that kind of access. Thank god for that because it would have been difficult for an open, democratic country to allow foreign soldiers to operate from its soil. Still we sulk because Washington wants to build equally strong relations with Islamabad. Must it always be either they or us?

Kabul has a friendly government, at least not under the influence of Islamabad or the ISI. The Musharraf government has, unwittingly, helped us. Another point to welcome is that Islamabad is waging war against Islamic fundamentalists and obscurantists. They are the Taliban within.

The point for us to feel elated is that Afghanistan, which was a breeding ground for terrorists, is no more a vortex of militancy. Terrorism will no longer be exported to Kashmir from there. There was a time when Musharraf was thick with the terrorists. He was unsure of his ground even when he took action against them initially. In Sindh, he arrested some but released them quickly. He was probably testing the waters. Subsequently, he joined issue with them.

He has detained many and has faced the worst type of demonstrations in support of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Not only that. Musharraf has dismissed the ISI chief, transferred the two top army commanders and demoted some middle-rank officers who were baptized during the General Ziaul Haq regime. The military — one-third of it bigoted — may well have been cleaned up.

This mopping-up job must have emboldened Musharraf. He has enunciated harsh measures to discipline thousands of madrassahs which have been training nearly five lakh students in fundamentalism every year for the last two decades. The madrassahs will need to register, submit their accounts for audit and introduce science and other subjects to modernize their curriculum. This is something we dare not do against the madrassah-like institutions in India.

The military set-up is probably best equipped for the tasks. For the first time in many years the Pakistan intelligentsia is happy that the wave of Talibanization, which was taking over society, is receding. Some leading journalists and academics who were in Delhi last month were amazed to find India indifferent and uninformed.

Not even once have we given the impression that we favour the development. Any step against fundamentalists in Pakistan strengthens our secular society. Who knows Musharraf may come to realize that the minorities in Pakistan should have a better deal. The system of separate electorate is the millstone which the Christians and the Hindus have been wearing around their necks since the inception of the constitution that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto framed. Although the two communities do not exceed five to seven per cent of Pakistan’s total population, their say is nil. Musharraf may well prove to be the first head of state to give them a voice.

Musharraf’s Achilles’ heel is that he lacks the electoral backing which every ruler cherishes. The test will come next year when Pakistan has to return to democracy under the orders of the Supreme Court. Pakistan may not turn into a democratic polity. The army has too much stake in the policy Pakistan pursues. Even otherwise, the army in a Third World country seldom returns to the barracks if it once tastes power. It is worse in Pakistan because there authoritarianism is woven deeply in the warp and woof of society as it is organized on the basis of Bonapartism and feudalism.

The extent to which Pakistan becomes a modern liberal state will be significant for us. It is unfortunate that it still believes that the terrorists it sends across the border are jihadis. This has only communalized society. The supply of arms, training or money n the name of religion is equally divisive. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto saw the point during her visit to New Delhi and she said she would stop cross-border terrorism if she were to return to power.

What New Delhi and Islamabad should be worrying about is that America looks like staying in the region. It may have a base in Afghanistan and also protect oil and gas in the country. America would like to overlook China, Russia, India and Pakistan. It would also like to influence events in the region. This is the greatest danger to both India and Pakistan. Individually, the two will be helpless. They must jointly act to keep America out of the region, even if they do not see eye to eye on many points.

Airport safety agreement

IT took too long but House and Senate negotiators have found a workable way to shift airport baggage screening out of the grasp of haphazard crews hired by airlines. That, more than who will pay the screeners, has mattered most all along; the point is to produce a highly trained, well-equipped force under an agency dedicated exclusively to safety.

The agreement can make that happen, and it ought to speed the improvements. While various proposals in the bill will take time to complete _ and may initially result in longer passenger lines _ the legislation calls for the government to start taking control right away. That’s critical in rebuilding public confidence as the holiday travel season begins.

Under the compromise, all airports will adopt federal screening within a year of enactment; at that point, five airports of varying sizes will have an option to hire private contractors for trial programs. After three years, all airports that meet strict federal standards will have a choice of using government or private screeners under federal control. Either approach can work; training, supervision and high standards are essential.

Other security improvements that were in both versions of the legislation — for fortified cockpit doors, more air marshals on board and equipment and requirements to see that all checked bags are matched with passengers and screened — have started already. —The Washington Post

The second ‘war against terror’

A NEW front has been opened up in the war against terror. Situated in the Middle East, it features Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on the side of ‘freedom’ and ‘justice’; Yasser Arafat, Hamas and the Palestinians in the terrorist/terrorism sponsors camp. The parallels between this Israeli-led campaign — triggered by the suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Haifa ten days ago and that launched by George W. Bush after September 11 are striking.

Bush’s immediate response to the events of September 11 was that war had been declared on America. In his post-attack address to the Israeli nation Sharon made a similar claim, ‘A war has been imposed on us, a war of terror’. Bush vowed to ‘smoke out’ those behind the WTC and Pentagon carnage. Sharon: ‘we will hunt them down until we catch them, and they will pay the price’. Bush’s stress was on terrorists but equally on those who harbour them. Sharon too vowed to get those who ‘chose to allow the merciless slaughter of innocents’. George Bush warned the American people that it would be a long, hard war. Ariel Sharon told Israelis: ‘This struggle won’t be easy. This struggle won’t be short, but we will win.’

And those were just the verbal parallels. The military ones were even more striking. America started its military campaign by precision bombing the Taliban’s ‘air defences’ and air force. Israeli missiles destroyed the ancient Russian helicopters that pass for Arafat’s airforce, while bulldozers ripped up the runway at Gaza Airport. The US went on to target ‘military installations’ and ‘command and control centres’ (mud huts, when stripped of the grandiose terminology). Israel hit Arafat’s security apparatus, razing the police headquarters in Gaza to rubble.

These parallels are not coincidental: on the contrary, they are very very deliberate. The reason is simple: to defuse any potential criticism. For how can the Americans condemn Ariel Sharon when he does what they have done already, namely, attack a whole people on the pretext of hunting out terrorists? If they accuse the Israeli leader of bombing innocents or acting without proof or showing no respect for international law, they stand vulnerable to the accusation ‘What about you’ ‘What’s the difference between this and what you’re doing in Afghanistan?’ So Washington does not condemn him.

Further, it condones his actions. As Israeli helicopters smashed the Palestinian Authority’s crumbling infrastructure, and Israeli tanks made further incursions into Palestinian territory, spokesman Ari Fleischer’s comment was: ‘Obviously, Israel has a right to defend itself and the president understands that clearly.’ Rumsfeld went even further, ‘The only way to defend against terrorists is to go after the terrorists’. Even Colin Powell, generally considered the all too rare voice of reason and rationality in the Bush administration, condoned the Israeli assaults: ‘America is not going to tell Ariel Sharon not to defend his nation.’

No one claimed responsibility for the September 11 attacks. Yet the Bush administration was adamant that Osama bin Laden was behind them and, by association, the Taliban. It decided to destroy both. The Jerusalem-Haifa bombings were not anonymous: Hamas claimed responsibility for them, characterizing them as retaliation for the assassination by Israel of its military leader Mahmoud Abu Hanouf.

But Israeli anger was directed almost solely at Yasser Arafat. They blamed the activities of Hamas on the Palestinian leader — he let Hamas members roam free, he incited them, he supported them. Therefore, the Israelis insisted, it was Arafat who had to curb them. This demand too was dutifully backed by Bush: Arafat, he said, must ‘use everything in his power to prevent further terrorist attacks in Israel’.

Sharon’s terrorism theory is neat and convincing. Its appeal lies in its simplicity. Arafat incites and allows terrorist attacks against innocent Israelis: if he stops, so too will terrorism. Since he refuses to stop voluntarily, he must be forced to do so. Note the very personal nature of the targets chosen by Israel: Arafat’s helicopters, Arafat’s headquarters, and so on. A deliberate exercise in humiliation was carried out to compel Arafat to suppress Hamas.

The theory is convincing — but only until one examines the facts.

The terrorist attacks which Ariel Sharon was so indignantly and righteously condemning were the result, not of Palestinian Authority incitement, but of Israeli aggression. These particular bombings were a response to the Hanouf assassination, and to the killing of five Palestinian children by an Israeli-planted explosive device planted in a civilian area. But the ultimate cause of Palestinian violence against Israel— be it stone-throwing, sniper attacks or suicide bombing — is the decades-old occupation of Palestinian land by Israel. Arafat does not need to incite the Palestinians: they have been angry for generations.

Listening to Israeli, American and even British commentators, it is quite incredible how they lose sight of this fundamental. They dismiss the occupation as an historical irrelevance and blame the Palestinians for refusing to accept Israel’s right to exist. Even that claim does not stand up to scrutiny: the Arab world has swallowed the bitter pill of Israel’s existence. What it has not swallowed is Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. For the West, characterising Yasser Arafat as the source of all evil and terrorism is a convenient way to avoid facing up to this far more uncomfortable reality.

Can Arafat control the ‘terrorists’? Anyone watching the response from the street to the Palestinian Authority’s attempt to place Sheikh Yassin under house arrest will get their answer. Thousands of Hamas supporters came out to counter the Palestinian police, producing the depressing spectacle of Palestinian fighting Palestinian.

A brief historical aside (and more parallels) here. Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were once the darlings of the United States: the former was trained and armed by them to fight communist Russia, the latter were wooed in the hope of securing American access to Central Asia. It seems incredible now but is quite true that in its early days Hamas was actively encouraged by Israel as a counter-force to the then popular PLO. Yesterday’s allies, today’s terrorists. How times have changed and how soon we forget.

Sharon knows Arafat cannot contain Palestinian anger. He knows too that putting pressure on him to do so could trigger a backlash that would finish Arafat. But that is precisely what he wants. For this ‘war against terror’ that he has launched is in fact a war against peace. Arafat goes or is rendered ineffectual: there is no one for Israel to negotiate with, hence no peace process and no need for Israel to make compromises (a necessary condition of peace-making.) Even if the peace process is eventually resuscitated, the settlements built during this ‘time out’ will change the ground reality further in Israel’s favour. It will have to make fewer compromises.

Two wars against terror. The first launched on the basis of freedom and justice, the second on the right to live in peace and security. Neither is based on truth.

A real celebrity

MORE and more people are having their 15 minutes of fame. The other day I saw a man on the street who looked very familiar.

I said, “Didn’t I see you on the ‘Today Show’ the other morning?”

“Yes,” he said modestly.

“When Al Roker went to the weather on the sidewalk in front of Radio City, weren’t you the guy holding up a sign that read ‘Bubba From Buffalo’?”

“That was me. It’s the first time anyone from Buffalo has been recognized in years. They are talking about having a parade for me when I get home.”

“How did it happen?”

“Well, I was standing on the sidewalk with my sign when Al came out.”

“Where did you get the sign?”

“My wife made it for me. She knew I was going to New York on business, so she said, ‘Go to NBC. You’re better-looking than most of the people on the show, and besides, it’s Buffalo’s turn.”’

“It might have been. Mark Russell comes from there,” I said.

“I practised several mornings. Then last Friday I decided to go for it. I arrived at 6 a.m. to get a good place. There were several people there already and we shared coffee. But we knew as soon as Al came out it was every man and woman for himself or herself. I knew it would be tough. There was a Girl Scout troop from Omaha, a couple who were celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary, and the drum and bugle corps of USC.”

I said, “You have to have a lot of talent to go up against them.”

“Anyhow, I sized up the crowd and took my place next to six nuns from St. Mary’s of Notre Dame. They were my toughest competition. I knew Roker would go to them, as he really likes to give anyone from Notre Dame a sound bite.”

He continued, “The newspapers reported that I knocked over a school teacher from Salt Lake City to get to the head of the line. This is not true. She tripped when she pushed me.”

“Then what happened?”

“Well, it was 7:30 and Al came out. There was a cheer from the crowd as he held his microphone up. ” —Dawn/Tribune Media Services