KARACHI: War against Taliban adding to woes of starving people
By Our Reporter
KARACHI, Oct 27: Speakers at a seminar here on Saturday expressed concern over the killing of civilians in American bombing raids on Afghanistan, and also raised questions about Pakistan’s sovereignty in the evolving situation.
The seminar on “The possible impact of Afghanistan war on socio-economic aspects of Pakistan” was organized under the aegis of the Pakistan Peace Coalition in which representatives of civil society, professional bodies and trade unions participated.
A resolution adopted at the end of the proceedings unequivocally condemned terrorism in all its manifestations everywhere and supported the cause of religious, political and cultural pluralism and tolerance of views.
It also called for democratic dispensation, rational argumentation and scientific mode of thinking with a view to preserving and enhancing human freedoms and material progress everywhere.
“We, therefore, condemn the terrorist attacks on September 11 in American, without reservations. We also support the war against terrorism as such.
“But the kind of war that the Americans are waging against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan is causing havoc to the more or less starving people of that country,” the resolution said emphasizing that the participants held no brief for the Taliban and condemned their reactionary rule and also the so- called jihadi organizations in this country for being violence-prone. “They all stand for obscurantism and reactionary politics,” it said.
The participants were of the view that Pakistan at this juncture needed democratization of its society in which a tolerant and pluralist democracy should rule and where rationalism and scientific outlook were encouraged. They also insisted on demilitarization of the society, politics and economy.
The participants called upon the US to allow the UN General Assembly to enforce peace through an international force comprising peace-keeping troops from small Third World countries, including Muslim countries.
They emphasized that a thoroughly democratic resolution of the Afghan issue was essential. “Nominated and so-called broad-based governments can neither stick together nor work. A big international effort is urgently needed for preserving the unity and sovereignty of Afghanistan as a state and for speedily creating administrative, physical and economic infrastructure.”
It also supported the convening of Loya Jirga, but emphasized that it should be convened under the UN supervision. It strongly opposed any attempt to divide Afghanistan on any pretext.
When the resolution condemning terrorism in all its forms and manifestation was put to the house it objected to the phrase that ”we therefore condemn the terrorist attack on September 11 last, on certain American targets, without reservations. We also support the war agaisnt terrorism as such”.
Dr Jafer Ahmed dealt mainly with the impact of the Afghan situation on Pakistan’s society and politics, and said it had exposed various inherent contradictions.
He said the terrorist attacks of Sept 11 exposed Pakistan as a satellite and a client state and gave rise to many questions about the country’s sovereignty. He referred to the reported threat of American leaders to Gen Pervez Musharraf to either support Washington or be condemned as among those who were with terrorists. The question was why Pakistan’s leadership was threatened. They had been meted out that treatment because over half a century Pakistan had been turned into a client state. Like previous experience of giving away airbases to the Americans under CENTO and SEATO, once again Pakistan had handed over at least four of its airbases to the Americans, although it was not being told for what purpose the operations from those bases were taking place.
The evolving situation, he said, had also exposed the myth of strategic depth, and gave rise to the perception that strategic assets instead of providing security to the country had become a handicap, and the government had capitulated to foreign pressure, in spite of them.
He said the current situation was also being faced because instead of making the country a true republic it had been turned into a national security state in which the military enjoyed all the power to decide about national affairs, political, economic and other matters. Sometimes directly and sometimes through proxies. He was of the view that political parties did not play their role properly.
He was of the view that fundamentalism had seeped into the body politic, and feared that in a country where about 80 per cent of the people were silent, the remaining radicals, armed to teeth, could make them hostage to their way of life.
He also dealt with the impact of the influx of Afghan refugees, Kalashnikov culture, drugs and the creeping influence of the drug mafia in the politics of Pakistan.
Speakers were also of the view that the war in Afghanistan would have a serious negative impact on Pakistan’s economy, and it was wrong to assume that lifting of sanctions and easing of debt servicing would have a strong impact.
They said the situation had exposed the double standards of the Americans who had conveniently forgotten their principled stand on democracy. Japan had also forgotten its concerns about the nuclear issue and given relief to Pakistan.
Newspaper columnist M. B. Naqvi, who presided over the proceedings, was of the view that the Americans had intentionally started two wars. One against the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and the other inside Pakistan in which Pakistanis were fighting compatriots with words, Fatwas and sometime by flexing their muscles.
The war inside Pakistan was mainly between the military government run by Gen Pervez Musharraf and religious parties tactfully assisted by their jihadi organizations. The religious lobby, he said, supported Taliban.
He said President Musharraf’s support to American bombardment and the threat of ground offensive had influenced opinions among the religious parties resorting to noisy protest rallies.
The decision of the Musharraf government, despite being hurried and rather undignified, was rational and justified, he said. No sensible democratic-minded person in Pakistan would allow religious parties to impose a Taliban-like government in the country.
He called for containing and countering obscurantism and reactionary forces represented by religious parties and jihadis.
He said it was strange that the military government was succumbing to the pressure of the enemies of the Musharraf policy of supporting international efforts against terrorism, as it was permitting them to hold public rallies and meetings while those who agreed with President Musharraf’s policy were being restrained and restricted.
Rev Dr Pervez Sultan, speaking on the impact of the new developments on the minorities, said they felt insecure. He said this was not a new phenomenon. Dr Tahira Khan, social scientist, spoke on the impact of the Afghan war on women and children.
Some of the speakers were of the view that the corrupt and self-centred ruling elite was happy over the prospects of more aid coming into Pakistan because they saw the prospect of personal gains in that. But, they said, whatever aid was being committed a sizable portion of that would be spent in the upkeep of Afghan refugees and the rest would be pocketed by the elite, as they had done in the past.
Pakistan, they contended, would not be benefited in the long run. In fact its difficulties would increase. The speakers also warned against creeping foreign intrusion into the body politic of Pakistan.
There was a consensus against religious fanaticism, but at the same time speakers and participants were also against delivering Pakistan to the American camp at the risk of long-term destabilization of society.
