| October 14, 2001 | Sunday | Rajab 26, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Honour well deserved
Set-piece protest
PRESIDENT Bush’s offer of a “second chance” to the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden for trial deserves to be considered carefully. Given the gravity of the situation, the Bush offer is not something that should be brushed aside brusquely or rejected out of hand as a propaganda stunt. In fact, if it is a propaganda ploy of ‘sweet reasonableness’ then the Taliban have an excellent chance of exposing it to be so by grabbing the offer. Whether the Taliban would study the offer cool-headedly and with a sense of realism, keeping the best interest of the Afghan people in mind is a moot question.
Ever since the terrorist attacks in the US on Sept 11, Washington has considered Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network as prime suspects. Subsequent investigations and the evidence available to them, it is claimed, have confirmed that Osama was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Since then the US and the world coalition had been trying to persuade the Taliban to hand over Osama for trial so as to avoid military action. Pakistan played a crucial role in these last-minute compromise efforts. Pakistan sent a high-powered delegation to Afghanistan to prevail upon the Taliban authorities to hand over the Al Qaeda chief to a third country for trial. Pakistan also approached the Taliban through unofficial channels and sent a delegation of ulema to present its point of view on the issue to the authorities in Kandahar. However, the Taliban remained obdurately negative in their response.
Since last Sunday, when Anglo-American strikes began, the situation in the region has become grim. While the air strikes have focused on military targets, there has been a considerable loss of civilian lives. Unavoidable though the “collateral damage” in every war is, the civilian casualties have added to the plight and distress of a people who have already been victims of war for more than two decades. The Muslim world in particular has reacted to the civilian casualties with understandable anger and protested against what to many appears to be indiscriminate bombing. Sections of opinion in Europe and America have also criticised the intensity and scale of air strikes and pleaded for a more restrained and focused air campaign.
Now the Taliban again have a chance to sue for peace and avert a more catastrophic situation for themselves and for the country. They need not hand over Osama to the US; they can turn him over to a third country with the condition that the trial would be fair and open — which in any case is reasonably guaranteed by the fact that no matter where and under what law the trial takes and whatever the composition of the court, the whole proceedings would take place in full glare of the world media and under the watchful eyes of numerous observers appraising and scrutinizing every bit of the evidence and every point and nuance of arguments presented before the court. That rules out any possibility of miscarriage of justice even if it is intended for political reasons. The Taliban would be making a big mistake if they ignore this fundamental fact in formulating their position on the latest offer.
A Taliban rejection of the Bush offer, however, should not mean a carte blanche for the Anglo-Americans to unleash their fury on Afghanistan. The strikes should be focused, and the aim should be to achieve the war aims as quickly as possible. In any case, the coming winter would make ground operations difficult. This would prolong the war, basically to the Taliban’s advantage. Above all, the US and UK should ensure that the war is not widened to include other states. Such a course would inflame passions in the Muslim world and create fissures within the world coalition of which Muslim countries are a vital part.
IN A unipolar and yet highly charged world, it is not surprising that this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has gone jointly to the United Nations and its secretary-general. Mr Kofi Annan is the second UN secretary-general, besides Dag Hammarskjoeld — who posthumously became Nobel laureate in 1961 — to have won the coveted award. He has worked tirelessly to bridge the gulf that separate many UN member states, at times succeeding in his endeavours, and at others feeling frustrated in the face of intransigence shown by certain states. Yet he has proved to be the man of his mission, who does manage to get the majority of states to rally behind him on a given issue — the most recent case being the UN pushing for increased humanitarian aid for the war-stricken people of Afghanistan. The Bushes, the Blairs, the Sharons, the Saddams and the Osamas of the world may continue to cause one global tragedy after another, but it is reassuring that the UN under Kofi Annan has not completely lost its will to do what it can to lessen human misery to the extent possible under the circumstances. The world body may not be able to prevent conflict but it still manages to provide relief to millions who, if left to their ill fate, would likely perish. Despite its many failings, the UN is today the only world forum where nations and governments get a chance to be heard — some countries obviously get more heard and heeded than others. Like most Nobel Peace Prizes handed out in the past, this one may be controversial too but it is the least controversial one in recent years. The prize also comes as a symbolic gesture for the world organization and its head in this centennial year of the institution of the Nobel Prize.
ORGANIZERS of Friday’s protests had clearly said a day earlier that the rallies would be peaceful and not turn violent. Unfortunately, though, the violence and bedlam that had rocked Quetta a week earlier re-surfaced this time — albeit on a smaller scale — in Karachi. Five vehicles were burnt, three ambulances damaged and two fast food restaurants were attacked by mobs in Karachi during the protest. Major news channels aired film footage of one of the ransacked restaurants. The world again saw only one side of the story in Pakistan, the story as told by the violent extremists. Yet again the views and opinions of the silent majority — those not with the protesters but still worried about the recent turn of events — got lost in these images of violence.
How many times in the past have religious parties and groups said one thing and then gone back on their pledges and done just the opposite? And how many times have we seen supporters and activists of such parties attacking public and private property with complete abandon? Which religion advocates the burning of an ambulance (a total of nine have come under attack in Karachi alone in the past four weeks), or the beating of innocent shopkeepers? Those who go around attacking factories and cars do the greatest disservice to a religion that preaches tolerance and respect for humanity. The leaders of such groups need to realize that when a promise is made it must be kept. They must also advise their followers to carry out their protests peacefully. As it is, ordinary Pakistanis are going through a rough time. The last thing they need is extremists going berserk on the streets, burning vehicles and property, terrorizing people and creating mayhem all around.