| November 28, 2001 | Wednesday | Ramazan 12, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
President’s optimism
AMERICA’S foreign policy, specially its war in Afghanistan, has come under scathing attack from the visiting US scholar Noam Chomsky. In his lecture arranged by Dawn and the Eqbal Ahmed Foundation in Islamabad on Monday, the dissident intellectual from MIT stated that the US and Britain regarded themselves above international law and were using unlawful force in Afghanistan to achieve their foreign policy goals. Coming from a scholar of Chomsky’s stature, the observation carries weight and lends substance to what many people in Pakistan and the Third World have believed for quite some time now. In fact, the form of domination by the West might have changed over the ages, but has continued to exist for centuries — ever since Europe managed to gain superiority in arms. In the post-colonial age, the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America have been subjected to America’s neo-imperialism. The West’s quest for control of power and influence might manifest itself in different ways today, but its basic premises remain unchanged. Prof Chomsky listed a number of cases where the US resorted to naked force to assert its hegemonic designs.
It is a cause for serious concern that the Third World does not find itself equipped adequately to resist the expansionist ambitions of the West. Many of the developing countries are ruled by autocratic governments, which are sustained in office by the support they receive from the West. As a quid pro quo, they have to toe the American line. The fate of these governments has been determined by the extent of support they receive from the United States and not by their legitimacy as representatives of their people. They have been ditched when they ceased to serve the purpose of the patron power. The Shah of Iran and President Suharto are ready examples of this political expediency. What strategy should the Third World countries adopt in this situation? This is an important question, because if we go by what Prof Chomsky says — and there is no reason to question his thesis — humankind is heading for self-destruction. If this calamity is to be averted, it is important to generate a countervailing political force to check the onslaught of the United States. This would, in the first place, require many developing countries to settle their ideological and political disputes in order to bring greater stability to their regions.
It needs to be more widely understood than has so far been done that conflicts within societies as well as between states prove to be fertile ground for intervention by outside powers — in many instances these are the United States and Britain. It is by resolving their disputes through a process of give and take and a culture of tolerance that countries and socities can ensure greater regional stability. This would, more than anything else, prove to be a major factor in pre-empting outside intervention. By this reckoning, Pakistan and India should make a concerted effort to reach a settlement on Kashmir which has proved to be the biggest destabilizing factor in South Asia. The other significant approach would be to strengthen the human rights culture which has been taking root since the sixties. But we still have a long way to go. Prof Chomsky spoke of this trend as being the only factor which has made the outlook a little less bleak than before. The activists in the field — whether they are those struggling for human rights, women’s rights, the rights of minorities or others — can transform the scenario by changing human attitudes and behaviour. It is also important that the intellectuals show greater moral integrity and join this struggle so that the human species is saved from the slide into the unknown.
WHILE one hopes that the post-Taliban government in Afghanistan will be friendly towards Pakistan, it is difficult to share President Pervez Musharraf’s optimism on this score. In his interview with PTV on Monday night, the president said he was not unduly worried over the existence of a Northern Alliance government in Kabul at the moment, because “Pakistan has its own importance with regard to Afghanistan.” To a certain extent, one may agree with the chief executive here, because the Northern Alliance government is a temporary phenomenon. Talks have already begun in Bonn, and sooner or later Kabul will have a multi-ethnic and broad-based government enjoying the confidence of all sections of Afghanistan’s population. In fact, the delegates to the Bonn conference have no choice but to work out the modalities for the establishment of a broad-based government. Without such a set-up, they know and the world knows, Afghanistan will again relapse into a new era of anarchy and fratricide. The big question is whether such a government will be friendly towards Pakistan. The president thinks it will be, but the logic he gives is too simplistic. Afghanistan is a landlocked country, the president said, and thus “whatever government comes into being in Afghanistan will be friendly towards Pakistan.” History does not bear this out.
Afghanistan has always been landlocked, but there were quite a few governments in Kabul that were not only not friendly towards Pakistan, they were quite hostile. Notwithstanding the fact that all of Afghanistan’s import and export trade goes through Pakistan, Kabul has seldom taken this into account. In fact, Afghanistan was the only country that cast a negative vote on Pakistan’s membership of the United Nations. Side by side, in concert with Moscow and New Delhi, Kabul carried on a virulent campaign against Pakistan on the Pakhtoonistan stunt. Zahir Shah’s overthrow made no difference to the situation, because governments led by Dawood, Taraki, Hafizullah Amin, Babrak Karmal, and Najibullah continued to maintain a highly inimical posture towards Pakistan. Thus, to assume that the next government would be friendly simply because Afghanistan is a landlocked country and dependent upon Pakistan for essential supplies is to assume too much.
If Islamabad wants friendly relations with Afghanistan, it should let the new government settle down and help it clear the debris of war. Events have proved that Pakistan’s policy of getting involved too deeply in Afghanistan’s internal matters has backfired. Relying too heavily on one faction to the exclusion of the others was a short-sighted policy that in no way advanced Pakistan’s long-term interest of having a friendly government in Afghanistan. The fall of the Taliban regime and the possibility of a new broad-based government coming into being give Pakistan a chance to start a new relationship with Afghanistan. While Pakistan’s desire to have a friendly government in Kabul is quite legitimate, on no account should Islamabad expect to have a puppet government there. By words and actions, Islamabad should convince Kabul that it has no favourites in Afghanistan and that it believes in a policy of mutual non-interference in each other’s affairs. At the same time, Pakistan should join the international community in helping Afghanistan re-build itself. This would also make it possible for the millions of Afghan refugees to go back home. Pakistan and Afghanistan have so much in common. Both can benefit from peace and economic cooperation if the two decide not to repeat mistakes.