Benazir Bhutto in Sacramento

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

November 16, 2001

Terrorist Sponsors: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China

by Ted Galen Carpenter

http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-16-01.html

Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and is the author or editor of 13 books on international affairs.

The United States has assembled a superficially impressive international coalition against the threat of terrorism. Many countries in that coalition, however, contribute little of significance to the fight. Even worse, the willingness of some members of the coalition to actually combat terrorism is doubtful. Indeed, given their record, some of those countries appear to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. That concern is especially acute with respect to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and China.

Saudi Arabia enlisted in the fight against terrorism only in response to intense pressure from the United States following the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Even then, its cooperation has been minimal and grudging. For example, Riyadh has resisted Washington`s requests to use its bases in Saudi Arabia for military operations against Osama bin Laden`s terrorist facilities in Afghanistan.

Even that belated, tepid participation is an improvement on Saudi Arabia`s previous conduct. The U.S. government has warned that it will treat regimes that harbor or assist terrorist organizations the same way that it treats the organizations themselves. Yet if Washington is serious about that policy, it ought to regard Saudi Arabia as a prime sponsor of international terrorism. Indeed, that country should have been included for years on the U.S. State Department`s annual list of governments guilty of sponsoring terrorism.

The Saudi government has been the principal financial backer of Afghanistan` s odious Taliban movement since at least 1996. It has also channeled funds to Hamas and other groups that have committed terrorist acts in Israel and other portions of the Middle East.

Worst of all, the Saudi monarchy has funded dubious schools and ``charities`` throughout the Islamic world. Those organizations have been hotbeds of anti-Western, and especially, anti-American, indoctrination. The schools, for example, not only indoctrinate students in a virulent and extreme form of Islam, but also teach them to hate secular Western values.

They are also taught that the United States is the center of infidel power in the world and is the enemy of Islam. Graduates of those schools are frequently recruits for Bin Laden`s Al-Qaeda terror network as well as other extremist groups.

Pakistan`s guilt is nearly as great as Saudi Arabia`s. Without the active support of the government in Islamabad, it is doubtful whether the Taliban could ever have come to power in Afghanistan. Pakistani authorities helped fund the militia and equip it with military hardware during the mid-1990s when the Taliban was merely one of several competing factions in Afghanistan`s civil war. Only when the United States exerted enormous diplomatic pressure after the Sept. 11 attacks did Islamabad begin to sever its political and financial ties with the Taliban. Even now it is not certain that key members of Pakistan`s intelligence service have repudiated their Taliban clients.

Afghanistan is not the only place where Pakistani leaders have flirted with terrorist clients. Pakistan has also assisted rebel forces in Kashmir even though those groups have committed terrorist acts against civilians. And it should be noted that a disproportionate number of the extremist madrasas schools funded by the Saudis operate in Pakistan.

China`s offenses have been milder and more indirect than those of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Nevertheless, Beijing`s actions raise serious questions about whether its professed commitment to the campaign against international terrorism is genuine. For years, China has exported sensitive military technology to countries that have been sponsors of terrorism. Recipients of such sales include Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Even though Chinese leaders now say that they support the U.S.-led effort against terrorism, there is no evidence that Beijing is prepared to end its inappropriate exports. At the recent APEC summit, China`s President Jiang Zemin was notably noncommittal when President Bush sought such a commitment. Whenever the United States has brought up the exports issue, Chinese officials have sought to link a cutoff to a similar cutoff of U.S. military sales to Taiwan -- something that is unacceptable to Washington.

It is time for China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to prove by their deeds, not just their words, that they are serious about contributing to the campaign against international terrorism. In China`s case, that means ending all militarily relevant exports to regimes that have sponsored terrorism. In the cases of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, it means defunding terrorist organizations and the extremist ``schools`` that provide them with recruits. It also means severing ties with such terrorist movements as the Taliban and the Kashmiri insurgents. The world is watching the actions of all three countries.

Ref spout #: 222

[I realized that after sharing two posts with him on another board. Maybe he`s the reincarnation of harimau.]

No, Harimau is unique.

How about refuting historical facts posted by me or answering logically my conclusions and opinions? I don`t see you doing that.

Re : Zico reply #120

Ladies and gentlemen Chowkies,

I hereby rest my case, with a strong appeal to the sane onboard to ignore Mr Zico`s moronic attempts at being witty and worldly wise. Clearly he lacks at being both.

Regards

Asim

RE: Reply #: 219 Prem

``Like all of us men with good sexual appetite, the US is always looking for new and better condoms. Both India and Pakistan should keep that fact in mind.``

I concur. Post Sept 11th, I thought that Maharaja Jaswant Singh`s hips would fly off (to use Arundathi Roy`s allegory) as he performed his dance in front of the U.S.. Looks like sanity has returned to South Block with the military activity in Kashmir after the Legislative Assembly bombing putting Americans on notice that, Afghanistan or no Afghanistan, India`s interests will be paramount in it`s dealings with the U.S..

Asim Hayat #209, ``Must a certified lunatic such as Zico be replied to, on every single one of his tantrums and vagaries. I think not! I would rather ignore the innocuous buffoon and just read his posts for their sheer amusement value if not for any factual or informational content. I suggest you do the same! and save your breath for people who can think beyond their own nose.``

I realized that after sharing two posts with him on another board. Maybe he`s the reincarnation of harimau.

ylh;

{That was part of another debate. Your post is based on your own assumptions... and it doesnt stand valid}

- My posts stand as shining pillars in a sea of....well, whatever.

Asim Hayat;

Oh dear, have I upset a poor little Pakistani-wani like you? Good.

{Must a certified lunatic such as Zico be replied to, on every single one of his tantrums and vagaries}

- Stop whinging.

{I would rather ignore the innocuous buffoon}

- Errrr, like just writing about me? That means I am not innocuous, and it makes you the buffoon.

;-)

touche

re: tvarad # 211

Like all of us men with good sexual appetite, the US is always looking for new and better condoms. Both India and Pakistan should keep that fact in mind.

`We are obviously debating at cross wires. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan is 60 years dead. I am sorry for any unwarranted assumptions I made about your political stance but my posts stay valid. Thanks for the debate.`

That was part of another debate. Your post is based on your own assumptions... and it doesnt stand valid.

For Tvarad:

Political Opportunism, Taliban, Frontier Gandhi, and the Nationalist Ulema:

As for political opportunism, what would one say of Frontier Gandhi who was all about Political opportunism, first in his alliance with Gandhi and then when he saw Congress being defeated he quickly switched over to Militant Pushtun Nationalism....

Had the `frontier Gandhi` the selfless politician, not gone from all inclusive goody goody `we are children of the same god` uh huh humanity love love peace peace Indian Nationalism to extremely exclusive Pushtun Nationalism ... one would say he was honest, but he just wanted political power, as was obvious by his brother`s shameless actions in NWFP legislature when after losing the Majority he still wanted to cling on to the Power...

Taliban are the true inheritors of the legacy `Nationalist` `Selfless` ulema and frontier Gandhi... Taliban are the Deobandis, and Deobandi Conference of India was totally allied with the Congress and against Jinnah, and Taliban are Pushtun Nationalists... just like Frontier Gandhi.... Ironic isnt it that the Dehli Imam, a rabidly anti-Pakistan figure, would now speak so loudly for the Taliban? Ironically enough the JUI of Pakistan also broke off from the same deobandi group the Deobandi Conference and now they are calling for the end of Pakistan and its amalgamation into the Islamic khilafat under the leadership of Amir ul momineen Mullah Umar, and his naib ameer, Ossama Bin laden....

So my very simple question is ...

The world is pitted against two things now in form of the Taliban:

1) Deobandi Fundamentalism

2) Pushtun Nationalism

What is the historic role of these two forces in the history of the subcontinent... both Deobandi Fundamentalism (Nationalist Ulema, Jamiat e Ulema e Hind, Deobandi Conference) and Pushtun Nationalism (The `Selfless` Frontier Gandhi) were allied with the Congress Party and opposed to very creation of Pakistan... Is it any wonder that the Taliban refused to sign treaties in the same room as Jinnah`s picture?

As for Frontier Gandhi`s party, it has opposed everything progressive in Pakistan... from honor killings, to most recently opposition to women`s participation in election process in the districts of Dir and Malakand...

TIME TO GIVE UP SIMPLISTIC NOTIONS, AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE COMPLEXITIES OF HISTORY!

PS: BR Ambedkar said in his book Pakistan or Partition of India:

`There is no politician who is more fitting of the title incorruptible than Mr Jinnah in India.`

Similar assessments were made by Gandhi, Beverley Nichols, H V Hodson, Sarat Chanderbose, etc

-YLH

`Maybe they foresaw (as did the Frontier Gandhi who you also allude to) a state built on opportunism rather than idealism, a state built on exclusivity rather than inclusiveness, an illogical state (if it is a homeland for sub-continental Muslims then why are there more of them outside it?). You get the idea.`

Yup and that is why after the creation of Pakistan they came clamoring in, and are now the frontline defenders of what they perceive the Pakistani ideology to be. I dont understand the Indian arguments... they are based too much on simplistic notions of History than truth.

Majlis e Ahrar had tried twice to align themselves with the Muslim League, but Jinnah due to his personal distaste for the fundoos refused to let them in.

In any event your `Idealistic` Islamic fundamentalits put forth the following arguments for their opposition of Pakistan:

1) Jinnah drinks and eats pork.

2) Jinnah married a parsi girl

3) Jinnah and the AIML leaders like Mustapha Kemal.

4) Jinnah and the Muslim League are like Muslim Zionists, they dont want an Islamic state.

As for your opportunistic part, this is a constant theme I suppose of the Indians, but atleast all mature Indian Historians maintain that Jinnah was above opportunism, greed, and personal gain... he was `incorruptible and brave` as your Mahatma said... And almost all of his political opponents had the same views about him ... I can give the proper quotes to you if you want!

-YLH

Great speech by Musharraf at the UN. He said all the right things. My advice to Benazir Bhutto would be to express her support for Musharraf at this critical time in Pakistan`s history.


RE: Reply #: 209 Asim Hayat wrote:

``People! would you stop bickering and concentrate on the business at hand. Those with existensial memories should barely recall that the discussion was revolving around the Benazir-Nama written by Mr Ras. Siddique, Madame`s official spokesperson in the bay area. :)``


Thanks for the promotion Asim. But little do
you know that I have been one of a handful of UNOFFICIAL spokespersons on behalf of PAKISTAN in the Bay Area (and beyond) for several years now.
These days I am somewhat bullish on Musharraf and
would like to see him get all the help that
he can within Pakistan and from Pakistani-Americans.
This is a first for me (supporting the Pakistan
Military, but I believe that The Musharraf Group
in Pakistan has embarked on a damage control mission. I wish them luck, because they
sure need it.

Ras

PS: Let us hope that Pakistani Bay Area Chowkies can try to make it to the first O P E N meeting
in the Bay Area on Tuesday night.

look who`s invited to Washington...amazing...

``US to invite Advani to

discuss terrorism

In a major step forward in bilateral relations, India and the US have decided to intensify cooperation in counter-terrorism moves and expand defence and economic ties.

As part of high-level exchanges, the Bush administration is inviting Home Minister Lal Kishenchand Advani to Washington for discussions on enhanced cooperation in anti-terrorism measures, US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill told PTI over telephone from Boston.``

RE: Reply #: 205 ylh

``To cut the long story short, if Pakistan and Islam are interchangeable why were the Deobani Ulema (the fore runner of the Taliban movement) against the creation of Pakistan? Why was Majlis e Ahrar allied with the Congress? Why was Jamaat e Islami bitterly opposed to Jinnah? Why did the Ulema call Jinnah `Kafir e Azam` and Pakistan `Kafiristan`?``

Maybe they foresaw (as did the Frontier Gandhi who you also allude to) a state built on opportunism rather than idealism, a state built on exclusivity rather than inclusiveness, an illogical state (if it is a homeland for sub-continental Muslims then why are there more of them outside it?). You get the idea.

And history has proved them right since it`s elite has consistently sacrificed the future of it`s citizenry to satiate it`s gluttony and made the country nothing more than a condom for the United States.