Crisis and Opportunity

SameerJB,

Once again, I agree with the wisdom of your posts. It will be in Pakistan`s best interests to cooperate with the US and develop much better relations with India for too many reasons to discuss. I have a few questions; how should the pro-Talibani communities in Pakistan be addressed? (I have been seeing a lot of mainstream western media footage of Pakistani young men who are sympathetic to the Taliban). My second question is: will the US`s presence in Pakistan be perceived with general resentment or support by non fundamentalist Pakistanis?

Btw, I had watched two shows on PBS with Bill Moyers who (if anyone has had the pleasure of watching his work) is more fearless than most TV jocks in pursuing complex understandings. He had on his show last night a wonderfully erudite and brilliant spokesperson named Farid (unfortunately, did not catch his last name). This spokesperson had studied in Pakistan for several years and had some experience with the more fundamental Islamic interpretations among specific Taliban sympathetic communities. Was anyone else able to catch the show?

Nasah

the situation is complex and as long as you did choose to respond I wish you would have given it more thought.

Clearly, this is not a situation which Pakistan would have chosen to be in - and the power equation is such that Pakistan will be used, on the other hand, If Osama is handed over, even to a third country, Pakistani interests in Afghanistan may be preserved. This is of course part of the Pakistani calculation.

Would you agree, that Pakistani relations with the US will, for a long time to come, not be like they were during the soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Unless, a decison is made in the US that it is imperative to develop civilizational relationship with Islamia, it will be China, not the US that will be the long term friend of Pakistan.

Woman of easy virtue - only a man could have said that - Yeah, used. And your point would be?

Hobbyty asks:

((Please comment of this analysis from the ``The Nation`` Sept 18 , 01, please also keep in mind Prof Khawaja Masud`s article about the philosophy of history, the meaning of historical facts and that today, masses are the engine of historical

``Pakistan comes first``

NEWS ANALYSIS

From Humayun Gauhar))

Here is my unsolicited comment:

Pakistan is like a woman of easy virtues -- once you have submitted -- for a price -- you are always asked and even forced to submit -- for a higher price -- and believe me -- delivering Kashmir is not included in it.

``Pakistan comes first``? -- that`s a mirage.

As Aatish would say:

na pooch haal meraa chaub-e khushk-e sehra hooN

lagaa ke aag mujhe carvaan rawana huaa

Happened in the past, will happen again. US will USE & ABUSE Pakistan for its own purposes -- then leave Pakistan HIGH & DRY -- once again .

For a woman with a past -- it is IMPOSSIBLE to say NO.

hobbyty 91

Again you have begun your misleading hateful rhetoric. Get that hatred of India out of your system. It doesnt convince Indians and it is not good for your system.

Is it true that when elephants fight, it the grass that gets crushed?

Certainly, America is an elephant, Pakistan, Afghanistan are the grass - but who is/are the other elephant(s)?

Osama? Al-Qaida? Are you kidding?

If we can correctly identify who the other side is, we can gain a commanding view of these events. Maybe if we can understand why the elephants have choosen to fight here and in this region generally, we may come close to identifying who the other elephant(s) is/are.

Re: hobbyty

You really expect us to take articles from ``The Nation`` and some guy named ``Amin Mateer`` seriously? You guys never were fans of non-Pakistani media -- the truth was too painful for you.

hobbyty

A call to sanity should go first to you. You stop selling snake oil on chowk, stop hating India, stop thinking of new ways to create hatred among Indians, become a decent man, a lot of sanity will return to Chowk.

hobbyty 91

Again you have begun your misleading hateful rhetoric. Get that hatred of India out of your system. It doesnt convince Indians and it is not good for your system.

Is it true that when elephants fight, it the grass that gets crushed?

Certainly, America is an elephant, Pakistan, Afghanistan are the grass - but who is/are the other elephant(s)?

Osama? Al-Qaida? Are you kidding?

If we can correctly identify who the other side is, we can gain a commanding view of these events. Maybe if we can understand why the elephants have choosen to fight here and in this region generally, we may come close to identifying who the other elephant(s) is/are.

Re: hobbyty

You really expect us to take articles from ``The Nation`` and some guy named ``Amin Mateer`` seriously? You guys never were fans of non-Pakistani media -- the truth was too painful for you.

hobbyty

A call to sanity should go first to you. You stop selling snake oil on chowk, stop hating India, stop thinking of new ways to create hatred among Indians, become a decent man, a lot of sanity will return to Chowk.

A call to sanity for all Indians - If it`s bad for pakistan does not mean it`s good for India:

From the Indian Express Sept 18, 01

``Vajpayee terminates a century of Ghandi and Nehru

Ready for World War III

As with ‘‘the first war of the 21st century’’, so did the first war of the 20th century begin with an isolated act of terrorism: the assassination of the heir apparent to the Habsburg throne, Archduke Ferdinand, in remote Sarajevo. The second world war completed the unfinished business of the first. Sixty million people perished in the two world wars; many millions more were killed in the hundreds of conflicts that engulfed the world in the next half-century. The bloodiest century in human history covered virtually every country in North America; North Africa and large swathes of sub-Saharan Africa; Australia and the Pacific; all of Europe, east and west; much of northern and central Asia from the Urals to Vladivostock and from Turkey to Tokyo; west Asia, east Asia and southeast Asia.

India, too, had its share of sudden death, notably during the Partition. But if in relation to most of the globe, India in the 20th century was substantially isolated from worldwide mayhem, that was largely the consequence of the non-violence of the Mahatma and the non-alignment of his principal pupil. The Vajpayee government has jettisoned non-violence. It is now readying itself to jettison non-alignment. Our land is in danger of becoming the killing fields of the 21st century’s first war.

The coming attack — carpet-bombing an entire nation to swat one Osama — will cement General Musharraf’s ties with the American Dhritarashtra

It is argued that India is not seeking out terrorism, it is India which has been sought out by terrorism. And as India is part of the world which as a whole is menaced by terrorism, we must be part of the worldwide struggle against this new form of warfare. The flaw in the argument is that terrorism is not a homogeneous threat. The terrorist threat which most parts of the world face is not the same as that the western world faces. Certainly, the terrorist threats India faces, and has for decades faced, are not the same which stare George W. Bush in the face. Indeed, many of the most serious threats to us and our people have arisen and been sustained in North America and Europe: Khalistan, the LTTE, Kashmiri insurgents, and cross-border terrorism in both the northwest and the northeast. To this day, home-grown terrorism and cross-border terrorism against our country are funded and supplied from the West, sometimes actively encouraged, more often winked at, and never, never acted against with the determination which the US and NATO today expect, indeed demand, of India. And her neighbours.

And because the minatory tone which the US has adopted against our distant neighbour is music to Vajpayee’s ears, the Indian prime minister thinks he is adding to Musharraf’s discomfiture by proving New Delhi more loyal to Washington than Islamabad. Foolish. For Pakistan has its own compulsions to cooperate with the Americans. And Peshawar is a much more useful base for invading Afghanistan than the Agra airforce base, of which Musharraf has such annoying memories. Moreover, Peshawar is where the Americans pleaded with the Pakistanis to nurture the Taliban; history’s ironic smile is going to witness the same US-Pak collaboration in smashing the Taliban. The coming attack — carpet-bombing an entire nation to swat one Osama — will cement Musharraf’s ties with the American Dhritarashtra. We will be back to the SEATO and CENTO of Ayub Khan’s day and the resurgence of USA’s benediction to Bhutto’s assassin, Zia-ul-Haq, in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

There can be concerted international action against international terrorism only if the international community is of one firm mind and resolve as to what is terrorism, who are the terrorists and how they are to be fought. Will George W. Bush insist that Musharraf’s reward for joining hands with him in tracking Osama is that Musharraf must henceforth stop referring to the terrorists in Kashmir as ‘‘freedom-fighters’’? Will Bush tell the Dutch government that harbouring Isaac Chisi Swa and T. Muivah of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland in Amsterdam is no longer acceptable international practice? Will George W. convey to his British, French and Canadian lapdogs the message from the Sri Lankan president that succour and safe havens to the LTTE must end forthwith? Will Washington promise to nuke Beijing if China’s assistance to the Maoist terror groups in Nepal does not cease forthwith? Are the insurgents of the Chittagong Hill Tracts people who must be eliminated — or freedom fighters who must be helped? Should Bhagat Singh and Chandrasekhar Azad be celebrated or denounced?

Will George W. tell Ariel Sharon of Israel that sending helicopter gunships into Gaza to target bomb the Al-Fatah headquarters of President Yasser Arafat is terrorism of the same order that destroyed the World Trade Center? Or swear they will never again bomb someone else’s palace as they did when Muammar Gadhafi’s three-year old daughter was killed by the US Air Force sleeping in her cot? Or a pharmaceuticals factory in Khartoum pummelled because the CIA thought (oops, wrong again!) that it was Osama’s munitions manufacturing facility?

Does Washington regard the Chechnians as terrorists, as Moscow does? If Spain moves to do a Guernica on Basque separatists, will US marines be landed landed at Biarritz? Do Tibetans of the Dalai Lama’s persuasion qualify as terrorists, as Beijing insists? Are Altaf Hussain’s people in Karachi mujahirs struggling for justice — or terrorists, as the Pakistan government sees them? Is Aung San Suu Kyi a noble rebel, as we believe, or a dangerous subversive, as the Myanmar government perceives her? Why go so far? Will the US president crack down on Catholic and Protestant Irish Americans who have been relentlessly stoking terrorism in northern and southern Ireland?

Yes, it is a terrible tragedy that 5,000 innocents lost their lives to terrorism at the World Trade Center. But is it not worse that 500,000 infants have died in Iraq because the Americans orchestrated a blockade of essential medicines for over a decade? George W. will retort that it is Saddam, not Bush, who has brought this terrible retribution on the Iraqis. In which case, of course, we have to ask the president’s father, Bush Sr, why the Allies did not move on to Baghdad to eliminate Saddam. The answer, we all know, was the need to save American lives. In which case, will the ground war against Osama bin Laden be pressed with the loss of American lives — or is it only passing Pakistani shepherds who have to pay with their lives for American missiles that do not quite find their target?

There is a time for mourning. And in that time we ask not for whom the bell tolls. But when the bell starts tolling for our children still alive, we owe it to them, lest they die in someone else’s war, to ask whether the struggle is against all terrorists — or only those who are against Uncle Sam. Till the answer is received, Vajpayee has no right to drag us without our consent into World War III. That is what Gandhi told the Brits at the start of WW II.``

Shammi, Satyavardi, urstruly - anyone who cares

Please comment of this analysis from the ``The Nation`` Sept 18 , 01, please also keep in mind Prof Khawaja Masud`s article about the philosophy of history, the meaning of historical facts and that today, masses are the engine of historical change:

``Pakistan comes first``

NEWS ANALYSIS

From Humayun Gauhar

ISLAMABAD—It goes without saying that Pakistan comes first, but it needs to be said because in every crunch past, when America needed us, our rulers let us down persistently, doing well for themselves but not for the country. That’s why now that the tightest crunch ever is upon us so weakened is our condition we have little choice but to comply. But, happily, for once we have a government that is putting Pakistan’s interests before its own.

Given our condition the question of refusing America is fanciful, for it spells destruction. Thus it was easy for America to terrorize us into accepting its demands. Hopefully, we will also use America for a change, though, unlike them, we needn’t dump them after we have got what we want.

America has been humiliated as never before, with a war that is new to it brought right into its heartland. When a wounded bear comes running for help only the foolhardy refuses it or starts negotiating first. President Musharraf was right in promising help immediately and, after calming the bear down, suggesting that we might need some help too. There is then a good chance that the bear will let Goldilocks eat some of its porridge. What do we want?

Debt riddance. It cannot be stressed enough that we must get it up front, on the table, in cash, small, used notes preferably. ‘The cheque is in the mail’ is unacceptable because America is an unreliable ally.

We have agreed to all its demands but even now it has not the common decency to lift sanctions against us. Immediate lifting of all sanctions, right now, before the first missile is fired or the first GI lands.

Massive direct investment, not in burgers and pizzas, but in modern factories and the social sector, for years.

Lifting of all quotas, including and especially textiles at all stages of manufacture.

India is America’s newest attack dog against China; a little mongrel that thinks it’s a Doberman. Get it to agree to a Kashmir solution that is acceptable to Pakistan and Kashmir.

Israel is America’s lead attack dog, a Pit Bullterrier. Pit Bulls, except this one, are banned because they are mad and maniacal. Its owner should immediately leash it because it lives on the flesh of innocent Palestinians. Every blood is as precious as the blood of Americans and Israelis. At this critical time, when its owner is trying to build a coalition of Muslim states, the Pit Bull is trying to derail it by attacking hapless Palestinians with horrific American weapons.

The Pit Bull partly owns, and largely controls, the Western media, which continues to pour invective on Muslims and inflame passions against them. The attack dog must be muzzled too, and this does not mean censorship. It means telling the truth. The woman on the CBS programme ‘Face the Nation’ asked Colin Powell whether he could trust Pakistan? What cheek! The question should be whether we can trust America.

That India will not get a Security Council seat until a Kashmir settlement, and if and when it does so must Pakistan. How can there be a Security Council without a single Muslim State on it? Ours has to become one world, undivided between privileged and downtrodden. Or is Huntington right about the clash of civilizations?

It has to be said that our President has done a fantastic job in changing the tune of the Western media. Pakistan is once again the flavor of the times much to the discomfiture of India and Israel who were daydreaming up a joint operation under US auspices to knock Pakistan out after its assumed refusal to help America. Their world has been stood upside down as I dare say have their nefarious plans. Well done General. You did well by reacting to the wounded bear first and making demands later. I have to say, though, that India’s discomfiture gives me the greater pleasure.

What action could America possibly take against Afghanistan?

Missile attack, probably from the sea.

Air mobile operations, which means fighter jets, bombers and helicopters.

Ground Offensive.

The first, we have seen, is useless. The third only a madman would undertake after the Soviet experience and the British before that. (Though there is no gainsaying that this might eventually happen and like we did what Napoleon and Hitler could not by defeating the Russians we might be the first to defeat the Afghans. But I wouldn’t bet on it). Air mobile operations seem the most likely.

However, though the possibility is hugely remote, one cannot totally rule out the use of a tactical nuclear device. What effect that has on Pakistan by way of radiation fallout depends on wind direction and bomb size, but please God it does not happen, not least because America and its allies will become history’s pariahs. Then there is another little-known bomb known as ‘Fuel Air Explosion’ that su-cks everyone and everything out of wherever they are, including bunkers, and also intestines out of the mouth and nose and eyes out of sockets. It is horrific but has no fallout. Its mad manufacturers call it ‘environmentally friendly’!

To do all this America wants three things from us so far.

Intelligence and information sharing, which we have agreed. Pakistan can give it greatest comfort, even more than Iran, because our proximity is more relevant and who knows Osama, the Taliban, the terrain and traditions better?

Use of our airspace, to which we have also agreed, because they can use it anyway, as they did the last time. It was nice of them to ask.

Logistical support. Therein lies the rub for it’s a vast area, meaning help in any operation they are planning. I am pretty certain we don’t know the US plan yet, and may never be told it in its entirety but only on a need to know basis.

They could want a forward base. They don’t really need an air base given their aircraft carriers, but perhaps a naval base. It doesn’t really matter. We will give them everything for pragmatism demands that we do. As I said last Sunday, the fence is gone. Americans who really matter told Pakistanis who really matter, “Either you are with us or against us. The choice is yours.”

“The future between Pakistan and the USA starts today. Forget the past. Are you our friend or our enemy, and no diplomatic jargon please.”

“You want to live in the 21st Century or the Stone Age?”

What should Musharraf have said? “Stone Age please, well done, with mustard on the side?”

Any surprise then that all Muslim governments are with America, except Iraq? Even Iran and Libya are. As to the people, that is another matter and all depends on how the US conducts the war. The choice before Musharraf was stark: survival or destruction. He chose survival. Morality never came into it. This is Pakistan’s most critical hour. Whether it has befallen upon us like a curse or a blessing only the choices we make and our behavior will determine. Musharraf — good, bad or ugly — is our President and we are landed with him in this most dangerous of times. He is doing the rational, patriotic thing. He needs our support, not unstinted, for he is fallible, but with constant advice. But unifocal unity is the need of the hour, as never before.

The IMF has told Shaukat Aziz that no doubt he did a great job and rebuilt credibility, but all that is gone now, unless we are with the USA. If our debt is retired who needs the IMF anyway?

What does Musharraf need to do?

Build a Grand Coalition of Unity, not only comprising writers, mullahs and politicians, but, most importantly, the people.

Open TV and radio to informed debate and discussion immediately. Once it starts, like in the newspapers, people will see the pragmatism behind Musharraf’s decisions and give support him instead of being emotionally led by the uninformed and unlettered.

Musharraf needs a world class international media campaign that draws upon a knowledge and sense of history, its rhythm and its cadences.

Once people are told of the likely prosperity ahead, that they will not ever have to humiliate themselves by queuing up in front of Canadian and British Embassies for visas because Canada and Britain will come here, why should they not support the government? They are simple and all they want is an upwardly mobile existence. Who wants to leave their country if they can help it?

Here is one way to getting people’s immediate support. Now that the World Bank and IMF conditions are no longer upon us, government should immediately halve electricity and gas rates. The response will be immediate too and the country will be totally behind Musharraf.

History is being made and we are lucky enough to be one of the few people making it. In such big times big deeds are required. Pettiness perforce becomes a thing of the past. Musharraf should immediately call the top businessmen and ask them to invest. In return, he should drastically cut interest rates and do everything necessary to facilitate investment. Not just Pakistani businessmen but the expatriates too, now feeling insecure in the West, will invest here.

The moment comes, but rarely, in the lives of countries that either they grab and climb to the mountain top or let slip between their fingers like a mirage. Our moment is upon us. Will we grab it or will we let it pass? It depends on us all, not just our President. It depends on the eye that sees and the mind that understands. It depends, as the poet said, on whether our grasp is beyond our reach, because it is the stars we are reaching for. Else what were the stars made for?``

Shammi

To be honest I don`t know how this Osama thing will play out, but I request you educate yourself as to what leaders around the world are saying to Ameican leadership, beyond the condolences. Nobody want a regional or civilizational war over a single person or organization or cells that are for the most part invisible - that doesn`t mean they are not agreed that terrorism must be contained or put to end - They wonder if a regional war or civilizational war is the way to go about doing it. The only people who want a civilizational war are the indians and the Israeli, they think, this will solve their problems - but I tell you both these entities will not survive a civilizational war - yes, there will be a Hindu majority India, in the Indian south. The first innocent muslim Afghans to be killed will be remembered,and someone, where will avenge them, can you doubt this? Already, in India, police have begun preparing for communal riots if regional war breaks out.

Kashmir - Why must all our ambitions to further ourselves as nations and peoples come to a clash on kashmir? What do you guys gain by holding them captive? - No they are not captive? OK, arrange a UN Vote there - India will break apart? Kashmir holds India together? What happened to secular values?

I think it is valid for Indians to ask Pakistanis why the deep concern for Kashmir - because they want to be Pakistani, they are dying for the right to be Pakistani, are any kashmiri in Azad kashmir dying to be a part of India?

But OK we`ll talk Kashmir later, but if we had this resoloved, negotiated settlement - we would have been partners, uneasy, uncomfortable partners, but still partners.

semiprecious,

Thanks for the Jensen article. Why does everyone but our mainstream American media seem to know this?

If anyone is interested there is a website called:

www.electronicintifada.net

I heard a great interview with the founder of this website on a progressive Jewish show in NYC called `Beyond the Pale`.

Re: Hobbyty

``...Are we agreed that had it not been for the hardliners in India coalition, a workable framework could have been presented to the peoples of Pakistan and India?...``

I would like to sidestep the blame-laying part, and focus on the latter part of your statement. A workable Indo-Pak framework (for the current NYC/USA/Taleban crisis, I imagine) could indeed and should have been considered, but without reference to Kashmir. Trying to tie two seemingly unsolvable crisis simultaneously is surefire path to failure, and eventually becoming the world`s laughing stock while Uncle Sam`s patience runs out. Right now, Uncle Sam is concerned about terrorism and the Taleban role in it (all other considerations are secondary). As Ferozk has mentioned in a different board, Pakistan needs to ask how secure will its western border be after Uncle Sam leaves the region? Kashmir, and India`s threat to Pakistan, may pale into insignificance. Bear in mind that even after the provocative Kargil crisis, India did not attack beyond the LoC, while the Taleban, bereft of nuclear weapons, are already making threats against Pakistan on Pakistani soil even before they have been attacked. This should put things in perspective.