| October 10, 2001 | Wednesday | Rajab 22, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Sharon’s paranoia
Anger on the streets
THE report that the US has informed the Security Council that it could take action against “other organizations and other states” as part of its fight against terrorism has a disturbing note about it. The letter speaks of America’s right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. While nobody would disagree with America’s right to act under that article following the Sept 11 carnage, one would expect Washington to be mindful of the full implications of opening up a wider front against terrorism simultaneously with the on-going move against Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network, shortly thereafter.
The Sept 11 crime has not only been universally condemned; most states of the world have also rallied to the support of the move to form a worldwide anti-terrorism coalition. Since evidence has shown Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda group to be the prime suspects in the Sept 11 suicide bombings, the world community has by and large agreed with the American decision to take military action against the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. The international coalition stays intact because the American and British war aim is limited and specific and the targeting focused. Also, in his speech to the American people, President Bush made it clear that America’s war was not against the Afghan people but against the Taliban and the Al Qaeda network. In keeping with this approach, American planes have been dropping food and medicines for the Afghan people to assure them of America’s solicitude for them. So long as Washington sticks to this course of action, there is no reason why the international coalition, including its Muslim component, should not stay united.
However, there is a serious possibility of fissures developing within the world coalition if the US decides to widen the scope of its military action. Which “other organizations and other states” are sought to be penalized should be obvious to all. Of all the countries declared “rogue” by the US, only two — Cuba and North Korea — are not Muslim; all others are. This means, should the US decide to widen the scope of its military action, it is the Muslim countries which will be targeted on grounds of “terrorism.” The country that comes to mind immediately is Iraq, against which the US and UK have continued their air action since the Gulf war. Iraq is also a victim of continued sanctions, and so far a minimum of 200,000 children have died because of lack of medicine. The other Muslim states whom America would want to be put on the mat would be Syria and possibly Lebanon (even though it has not been officially declared a “rogue” state), besides Sudan, Libya and possibly Yemen. Should the hawks in the Pentagon prevail, the world coalition would come under severe stress. This will not only disrupt the on-going action against the Taliban but also create an anti-US backlash whose consequences immediately and for America’s long-term interests in the Middle East would be inestimable.
Already, the Muslim world feels deeply hurt by Washington’s carte blanche to Israel for its genocidal policies against the Palestinian people. Add to it Washington’s persistently hostile policies toward such Muslim countries as Syria, Iran, Libya and Sudan and one at once detects a strong anti-Muslim slant in American policies. Should Washington choose to extend its military action to include all or any of these countries, the Muslim world could witness a sweeping wave of anti-American anger and rage it has never experienced before. It may also sweep aside those moderate Muslim regimes which are now on America’s side. The end-result would not only be war and chaos in the Middle East; the fight against terrorism may degenerate into a worldwide conflict on religious lines. This could throw the world back into mediaeval times. It is important for America to fully realize the consequences of such an eventuality.
WHEN a desperate Ariel Sharon opened his mouth three days before the US-led attack on Afghanistan, it was slander made worse by righteous arrogance. That the Israeli leader literally barked up the wrong tree when he accused the US of compromising Israel’s security by ‘appeasing’ his ‘terrorist’ Arab neighbours, was amply clear: The White House did not mince words or lose time in rebutting the insinuation. A nervous Sharon was then hurriedly called upon by his colleagues to tone down his rhetoric. For all its rarity, the bitter exchange of words between Tel Aviv and Washington only proves that it takes someone as myopic and paranoid as Ariel Sharon to doubt what is common knowledge to the rest of the world — that America is the best friend Israel has.
While the bizarre episode exposed the Israelis’ innate sense of persecution and suspicion of even the best of their friends, it also laid bare Sharon’s distorted and dangerous sense of reality. Clearly, the Israeli leader is perversely averse to President Bush courting Arab governments in order to rally support for his military action in Afghanistan. What is worse, Washington’s snub seems to have had no effect on Sharon and his cohorts. Israeli tanks have since rolled deeper into the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and the massacre of innocent Palestinians continues on one contrived pretext or another. The US needs to do more than just snub the Israeli leader, especially at a time when Sharon’s brutal tactics can easily harm American interests in the region. After all, Israel’s state terrorism has been put into sharper focus in the aftermath of the September 11 suicide attacks in the US. It is time Washington bluntly told Sharon what it has been telling the Muslim leaders around the world: ‘You’re either with us or against us.’
THE backlash to the US-led attacks on Afghanistan spilled over onto the streets of Pakistan on Monday. The worst affected was Quetta, where frenzied mobs set alight a number of buildings, including the offices of UN agencies, banks and cinemas, and fought pitched battles with the police. One protester was killed during this day-long orgy of violence. On Tuesday, the protests continued with three people shot dead while trying to burn down a police station on the outskirts of Quetta. The other protests across the country, most notably in Peshawar, Karachi, Islamabad and parts of the tribal areas, were relatively peaceful, without any significant acts of violence. While the numbers involved in the protests remain relatively small, the mood is generally bellicose. The religious parties are expecting the size of the rallies to increase dramatically should the number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan grow. The government, meanwhile, is particularly concerned that large-scale and violent demonstrations do not break out at this extremely critical time. In a pre-emptive move, the authorities have placed the leadership of the most vociferously pro-Taliban parties under house arrest.
While it is perfectly legitimate for people to vent their anger at the military action in Afghanistan, the violence and vandalism witnessed in recent days cannot be condoned. The government will have to make it clear to the protesting parties and groups to keep their supporters in check. The authorities must also sternly deal with those attacking public property and disrupting the lives of ordinary citizens. The targeting of offices belonging to UN or other aid agencies is particularly reprehensible. Many of these organizations have been involved in providing humanitarian services to the most desperate sections of the Afghan refugees, often at great personal risk to its staff. Such attacks must not be allowed as they can only make an already desperate humanitarian crisis much worse.