Low Graphics Site
White bar
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Horoscope Recipes Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Dawn Classified



FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
DAWN - the Internet Edition


January 30, 2002 Wednesday Ziqa’ad 15, 1422

DAWN Classified
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)

Opinion


Islam and the West
This Bush ain’t bound for glory
A boon indeed: OF MICE AND MEN
Blowing hot, blowing cold
The Guantanamo story



Islam and the West


By Iqbal Jafar

ACCORDING to some highly regarded scholars, there is a mighty clash between Islam and the West going on right before our eyes. It is believed that the clash is not a recent phenomenon, for it could be said to have been formalized in the year 1095 when Pope Urban II launched the first Crusade, and that it did not end when the eighth and the last Crusade ended in 1271.

The clash continued intermittently in the following centuries, but lost its focused fervour as a result of the more pressing preoccupations of the Christian powers, such as 400-year long quest for empires, always violent and often brutal, all over the world, the Hundred Years’ War, the Thirty Years’ War, the War of Jenkins’ Ear (clipped by Spaniards, not Arabs), the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and, of course, the cold war that twice brought the world on the verge of extinction. Samuel Huntington, the discoverer of the clash of civilizations, insists, however, that ‘Islam has bloody borders.’

Having said that, let me add that Huntington is not guilty of falsehood so much as of propagating a vicious half-truth. The whole truth is that both Muslims and Christians have fought more wars, killed more people, and caused more destruction than any other people in history, and that the Christians have proved more efficient and inventive in disposing of fellow human beings.

Now, after more than 700 years, there has begun, it is believed, another phase of direct and focused clash between the Muslim and the Christian peoples. Much has been written and spoken on the subject, especially since 1993, but despite enormous academic labour and media attention, there is no agreement on the precise nature and the cause of conflict. The ambiguities, evasiveness and dissimulations persist. No wonder, then, that the debate on the subject, in whatever way formulated, is now a muddle wrapped in confusion, for it is woven around categories (fundamentalists, militants, jihadis, terrorists) that conjure up shadowy figures, epitomized in the person of Osama bin Laden, brooding over the world they would rather destroy. The debate is, thus, concluded before it is begun.

One of the reasons why there is so much of theoretical confusion on the subject is the way the problem or the issue is formulated. ‘Islam and the West’, and other similar formulations, for example, imply that the clash is between the Islamic ideology (supposedly orthodox, militant, anti-West and intolerant) and the West that is supposed to be a distinct civilization representing the values of democracy, human rights, liberal moral code, tolerance and free-market economy. The clash is, thus, between two ideologies and, hence, global and eternal, unless one of the two ideologies fades away.

This view, despite much scholarly advocacy, remains clouded by dissimulation as it ignores or trivializes some very significant facts of the recent history that are still fresh in the minds of the people across the world. To mention only one such fact, all through the cold war there existed a strong bond between the Muslim nations and their orthodox religious parties, and the West, on the basis of ideological affinity, supported, promoted and accepted by western scholars.

There were, of course, some Muslim countries (Egypt, Iraq, Syria) that were anti-West, but they were the ones which were also secular states, and known for their persecution of the religious parties. This fact alone should be good enough reason to reject the thesis that the Islamic ideology, even as interpreted by the orthodox ulema, is inherently and irrevocably hostile to the West.

Some western scholars have put in enormous effort to ferret out verses, incidents, opinions and fatwas to prove that according to the Islamic faith, those who are not for Islam are against it, and should be put to the sword, whereafter they would for ever burn in hell. Here is an interesting thought for such scholars. According to verse 62 of Sura al-Baqarah “those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”

This verse has been a subject of much comment by Muslim theologians, but none more interesting or instructive (for Muslims and non-Muslims alike) than the one by Maulana Maudoodi, who was an ultra-orthodox scholar. According to him, the purpose of this verse was to refute the arrogant claim of the Jews that salvation has been promised for them alone.

The second flaw in the formulation ‘Islam and the West’ is that it implies that the conflict is with the West as a whole, not just with some western nations. The world of Islam as a whole is supposed to be arrayed against whole of the western-Christian world. This enables the authors of such formulations to globalize the conflict. But is there, in fact, a global conflict going on? All that we have to do to answer this question is to identify those conflicts that have agitated the minds of the people in the Muslim world, and see whether they add up to a clash with the entire western world.

The major areas of conflict, on-going or recently concluded, are well-known and well-documented. Excluding minor irritants, these are: the Middle East, Kashmir, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya. Looking at these conflicts in the context of ‘Islam and the West’, it is quite obvious that in four of the five areas of conflict (Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia and Kosovo) the fury of the alleged Islamic wrath is not directed against the West.

In fact, in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya (before 9/11), the West was supportive of the Muslim communities that were fighting for their right of self-determination which is a secular, even western, concept. The same is true of Kashmir where, again, the question is one of the right of self-determination, not of the establishment of an orthodox Islamic state. Thus, in four out of five major areas of conflict in the Muslim world, the West is not the target, nor Islamic orthodoxy the motivation.

This brings the focus on the Middle East. Now, how much of the West and how much of Islam is involved in the Middle East? First, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here the Palestinian militancy is directed, primarily, against the Israelis, who have occupied their lands and, next, against the US for having defended and supported the Israeli excesses. So the conflict is about land, and is between the Palestinians (both Muslim and Christian) and Israelis. The rest of the Muslim world, and the rest of the West, is not directly involved in the conflict, but some countries do support, or have sympathy for, one of the two parties on the basis of cultural or political affiliations, with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Such being the fact, it is hard to see a mighty clash between Islam and the West going on in Judaea.

Finally the second level of conflict in the Middle East, that is, the conflict between the Arab aspirations and the US policies in the wider context of the Middle East. The present discontent among the Arabs dates from the Gulf War that led to the stationing of American, and some British, ground, air and naval forces in the Gulf states. The war itself had nothing to do with Islam or the West. Iraq, a Muslim country, attacked and occupied Kuwait, another Muslim country, and was forced to withdraw by the coalition consisting of a number of western and Muslim countries, acting under the aegis of the United Nations. The US military played a major role in the conduct of war itself. This, in brief, is what happened. One can sniff about long and hard all over the Iraqi-Kuwaiti-Saudi battlefields without ever being refreshed by a single whiff of an ideological scent of any kind. There is, however, the aroma of oil all over the place.

Thus, what appears to be a clash between Islam and the West is confined to the Middle East, and arises out of Israeli occupation of the Palestinian lands, and the commercially strategic interest of the West in the Middle eastern oil. When President Nixon invited the foreign ministers of 13 industrialized countries to an emergency conference in February 1974 after the Arab oil embargo, Kissinger opened the discussion with the warning of a ‘collapse of the world economy’ unless collective measures were taken. Although no collective measures were taken, and the world economy did not collapse, it was a big crisis for the West. But that kind of crisis is not possible anymore.

The support for Israel as a western outpost, and control over the Middle Eastern oil, did make sense during the cold war when the power and influence of the Soviet Union could have seeped into the Middle Eastern politics. But today Israel, with an arsenal of about 200 nuclear warheads, cannot be threatened by its neighbours, and the Middle Eastern oil cannot go anywhere but to the buyers. Why should, then, the Israeli excesses be supported, condoned or overlooked by the West? And why play with the Arab sentiments by stationing US military forces in the Gulf states when its lethal and global reach cannot be defied?

But, our western friends may ask, how about those angry, suicidal fanatics who would not stop short of blowing up planes, demolishing buildings and killing innocent people? Well, they are being pursued and disowned, now that their potential for mindless destruction has so rudely impacted our consciousness. Pursue them by all means but also pursue the cause of a just world order, for injustice breeds that all-consuming passion to get even in death, if not in life.

Email: tvo@isb.comsats.net.pk

Top



This Bush ain’t bound for glory


SELDOM before in the history of human warfare have so many in the so-called free world owed so much to so few. Even Franklin Roosevelt, the only US president to be inaugurated three times in a row, and Winston Churchill may not have derived quite as much benefit from the evils of Nazism as George W. Bush has from the antics of Al Qaeda. Apart from everything else, Churchill and Roosevelt were compelled to share with Josef Stalin the limelight of their eventual triumph against Adolf Hitler.

Mr Bush has no competitors. Tony Blair, even when he dons the mantle of statesmanship, cannot convincingly pretend to be anything more than a messenger boy for Washington. Without 9/11, Mr Bush may still have been lashing about in an attempt to find a raison d’etre for his presidency — which was achieved, let us not forget, through the good offices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

He was widely perceived until then as a weak and exceptionally incoherent conservative, liable to mangle the commonest cliches whenever called upon to speak without script.

He hadn’t repeated his dad’s cardinal error of picking a nincompoop as his vice-president; a Dubya-Dan Quayle ticket would have been even more disastrous than the Bush Sr-Quayle combination. But Dick Cheney came with his own baggage: not only was he a knee-jerk reactionary, he was almost as deeply entangled in the oil trade as the president.

However, his extremism notwithstanding, Mr Cheney wasn’t seen as being intellectually negligible. That’s why whereas the joke in daddy’s era had been that the Secret Service was instructed to shoot the vice-president should anything happen to his boss, the advent of the Dubya presidency spawned the witticism that the occupant of the Oval Office was merely a front for his deputy.

All that changed on September 11. Although on the day of the outrage the fiction of a direct threat to Air Force One was employed to explain why the leader of the free world spent several hours cowering in a remote USAF bunker in Nebraska, thereafter it was Mr Cheney who performed a disappearing act while Mr Bush vied with New York mayor Rudy Giuliani for the super-patriotic limelight.

Last week, on the first anniversary of his inauguration, a broad range of media commentators joined forces, so to speak, to advance the view that Mr Bush’s stature has been enhanced beyond recognition in the year since he was sworn in.

It isn’t easy to concur with that judgment, not least in view of the unfolding Enron scandal. The energy giant, whose stock rating was not long ago worth $60 billion, filed for bankruptcy last December.

It has since emerged that the firm’s biggest victims were it’s own employees, who were encouraged to join a savings plan by purchasing share options. They weren’t, however, allowed to sell them. As a consequence, they lost everything when the company collapsed, whereas Enron executives were able to enrich themselves by selling their shares before the price fell.

This behaviour is now the subject of a criminal investigation — although it doesn’t seem particularly extraordinary in the capitalist context.

The Bush administration does not have a problem with the ethics of Enron’s exploitative conduct.

However, criminal charges against its executives (one of whom apparently committed suicide last week) could provide grounds for serious embarrassment.

The company was a regular contributor to campaign coffers, Democratic as well as Republican, although the lion’s share of largesse was reserved for the GOP, and Mr Bush was the single largest recipient. That again is not unusual. Although anyone can aspire to political office in the US, big business effectively streamlines the process by deciding which candidates to bankroll. And for reasons that are far from clear, this is known as democracy.

But wait, there’s more. It could hardly be a coincidence that the Bush administration contains a large number of officials who were previously on Enron’s payroll or held stock options.

For example, economic adviser Larry Lindsay and Trade Representative Robert Zoellick came straight from Enron, while Army Secretary Thomas White is a former Enron executive, and stockholders included the president’s political strategist Karl Rove and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Were it to turn out that, like the Enron bosses, they sold their shares while the going was good, there will be lots of red faces in Washington.

What did Enron get in return? Well, to start with, deregulation in the energy sphere and a tax cut worth $1.3 trillion, 90 per cent of which benefited the richest one per cent of Americans. But these were general steps intended to please most corporations. Evidence is now beginning to emerge of direct consultations between the administration and Enron over initiatives such as an economic stimulus package as well as the government’s energy policy. The latter reportedly entailed six meetings at the White House between Enron executives and Mr Cheney and his staff.

If this is beginning to seem more and more like the sort of crony capitalism that once flourished in banana republics, it is interesting to discover a Latin American connection. A crucial piece of the puzzle is the fact that Enron is headquartered in Houston, and warm relations between its CEO, Kenneth Lay, and the Bushes go back a long way.

Mr Lay was a major fund-raiser for Bush Sr too, and as a rising political star in Texas, George W. was evidently not averse to acknowledging “Kenny-boy” as his mentor.

The US political weekly The Nation reported in 1994 that six years earlier, while the big Bush was campaigning for the presidency, Argentina’s minister of public works and services, Rodolfo Terragno, received a phone call from George W., who introduced himself as the son of the US vice-president and then proceeded to lobby the minister to award Enron a vast project that entailed laying a pipeline right across the country to transport natural gas to Chile. Mr Terragno was unimpressed and turned down the request despite a follow-up visit from the US ambassador. (Enron eventually won the project the following year, after Raul Alfonso was succeeded by Carlos Menem as president.)

The great American tragedy is not the White House incumbent’s dubious connections but a deeply ingrained culture of corruption that appears to have gained widespread acceptance as a part of the political process. The Enron scandal is merely a facet of business as usual. As Andrew Leonard points out in a commentary in the web magazine Salon.com, “Enron’s woes aren’t really a scandal at all — instead, they’re a magnifying glass allowing us to see clearly exactly how government and business operate today.

“You spend enough money on campaign contributions and lobbyists to buy influence and get the laws changed on your behalf, and then you sit back and count your stock options. Enron did it on a bigger scale than anybody else in recent memory, and ultimately on a more incompetent scale than everybody else, but that doesn’t make it exceptional.”

The so-called war against terror provides the ideal means of burying inconvenient facts. Should Enron become a burning issue, a spectacular display of military fireworks in some part of the world will help to drive it out of the headlines. After all, President Bush is determined to increase his nation’s military budget by $48 billion (including $10 billion for new wars). National security was designated as the key theme of yesterday’s State of the Union address, but don’t expect any acknowledgement of the fact that additional stockpiles of missiles and bombs cannot guarantee anyone’s safety.

But, then, what can one expect from an administration that has picked someone as eminently qualified as Anthony Zinni — the former general who has been quoted as describing Yasser Arafat as a mafia chief and Ariel Sharon as a “papa bear”, for the delicate task of breathing life into the moribund Middle East peace process?

Let us not confuse popularity in opinion polls with stature. With or without Enron, the Bush presidency is beyond redemption, and not even Osama bin Laden can do anything about it. If the relatively enlightened Colin Powell (who is reportedly exasperated by his nation’s refusal to designate the captives at Guantanamo Bay as prisoners of war) is the odd man out in what is otherwise a right-wing cabal prone to extremism, it probably means that he won’t be invited to serve another term as secretary of state.

And it is also possible that the question may never actually arise. Approval ratings can prove to be as ephemeral as the value of Enron stocks. In his moments of contemplation, George W. perhaps should chew upon this: that his dad was voted out a year after the Gulf War; so was Churchill soon after World War II. On the other hand, maybe Dubya doesn’t have to worry about votes too much as long as he has the Supreme Court on side. Besides, he prefers chewing upon pretzels, doesn’t he?

Top



A boon indeed: OF MICE AND MEN


By Hafizur Rahman

A REPORT from Peshawar says that second-hand woollen clothes markets sprang up all over the city in the beginning of November and are now doing flourishing business. This could also be said about Rawalpindi-Islamabad and Lahore and Quetta, in fact about all towns and cities in those parts of Pakistan where the cold season makes itself felt.

These markets, named Landas after Lahore’s famous Landa Bazaar, fill a great need of the so-called respectable middle class and the poorer sections of society. And since a majority of the stuff comes from America, one can say that this form of US aid is the most useful for the country as it reaches the lowest levels of hard-pressed population. The best thing about it is that President Pervez Musharraf doesn’t have to thank President George Bush for it.

The Landa is a boon for the low-paid government servant, provided he feels no shame in going there and trying on a pullover or coat (or even a pair of trousers) in public. I claim to be the oldest acknowledging patron of second-hand clothes, having bought my first piece in 1951. Please note the word “acknowledging,” for there are many who buy there but are chary of admitting it. It is for such people that a hawker in Lahore’s Landa was once heard shouting, “Come on, take away these beautiful sweaters that your uncle has sent from Canada!”

The Landa has always been a popular subject for jokes about its safed-posh patrons and their complexes. But these jokes are not always a matter of fun for those involved. Take the case of my friend Amjad Husain of Lahore and what he went through some forty years ago. He was given an ultimatum by his wife when, in a weak moment, he invested in a second-hand tweed coat. She thundered, “Either this coat will remain in this house or I.”

For a moment Amjad Husain wavered between the merits of the coat and those of his wife but then the thought of having to look after five small children decided the matter, and the coat was given away to a passing beggar. Later, he vividly described this momentous event in his collection of light essays. While everybody laughed at his humour, nobody perceived the stark reality behind the surrender to social taboos.

The stark reality lay in the fact that a white collar middle class working man was obliged to buy a warm coat from the Landa because he simply couldn’t afford to get a new one stitched at twenty times its cost. It was also a middle class reality that the coat was not allowed to remain in the house. As for the cost, look at my experience. My only tweed coat wouldn’t button up so I gave it to a leaner brother-in-law. Since I have no qualms on the subject, I went to the Sunday Bazaar two months ago and purchased a fine piece for 110 rupees, after I was told that a new tweed coat would mean spending at least 4,000 rupees.

The Landa syndrome is symbolic of our ability or inability to face reality and opt for the sensible way to cope with the problem of high prices of woollen clothes. It’s as simple as that. But it’s not so simple to brush false prestige aside. People of my class find it harrowing to go to the Landa and try on something that takes their fancy, and with a crowd looking on. Although none in the crowd is bothered since they are all there for the same purpose.

But things are changing. Not so long ago if I bought a second-hand item from the Landa and was obsessed by the thought of friendly censure or public ridicule, I would give it out that the piece had been sent by that fictitious uncle in Canada. Now, it is the in thing for rich and fashionable ladies to make prize bargains in the Landa and then show them off. A young lady I know, who rides alternately in a Land Cruiser and a Mercedes, felt frustrated when she couldn’t make a sensational discovery from the Landa. So she passed off an expensive brand-new foreign-made cardigan as a second-hand purchase. The reaction among her friends was stunning and her day was made.

Except in Lower Sindh, winter clothes are a heavy drain every year on almost everyone’s budget in Pakistan. This can be drastically cut down if the people concerned can overcome the complex of social stigma attached to second-hand things worn previously by “dead white men.” The poor have no inhibition on this score, so this is essentially a problem of the respectable middle class.

Let us look at it this way. Whether the previous owner is dead or alive, whether he was white or black or yellow, and whether it was John F. Kennedy or plain Joe Smith, what does it matter? And where is the stigma? We have no hesitation in putting on clothes handed down by our elders, so why quibble at wearing a coat discarded by a blue-blooded American who no longer needs it? Every day those of us who can’t afford to buy new necessities of life buy them second-hand. These may be a house or a car, furniture or an electrical appliance. And nobody gives a deprecatory thought to taking a second-hand wife either, as long as she is good-looking.

On the intellectual plane, being rather short on original ideas, we constantly depend on second-hand theories, used up ideologies and defunct ideas — all borrowed from the West or the East where they may be old hat now and nobody bothers to own them. So what’s wrong with using second-hand clothes? At least they look new after being dry-cleaned. Often our complexes do not allow us to save where we can save money. With us ostentation is not a habit; it’s an addiction. I have a theory. If you are not able to find customers for a particular item in your shop, just double its price and stick a fancy label on it. It will go in minutes. The rich do not want to buy things at prices that the common man pays. Hence the tremendous sales at boutiques where the displayed price is ten times the cost.

So let us come down to earth and face reality. I don’t mean to say that the entire problem hinges on second-hand clothing. But they are a symbol and a test. How many of us can pass that test?

Top



Blowing hot, blowing cold


By M.H. Askari

INDIA continues to blow hot and cold over its differences with Pakistan. Discussing the situation in the subcontinent with the Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi’s special envoy, Dr Salem bin Amer, the other day, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said that there could not be any military solution to the problems between India and Pakistan.

However, addressing the National Cadet Corps at a function in New Delhi on Sunday the struck a belligerent note, accusing Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism in the occupied part of Kashmir and warned that his government would not hesitate about giving “a befitting reply”

Mr Vajpayee’s home minister, Lal Krishna Advani, sounded even more menacing. In a TV interview he argued that though war could not be a solution in the on-going situation it “may become inevitable.” He regretted India having “missed” the chance of settling all its differences after its victory in the 1971 war. He ruled out the prospects of any summit-level talks with Pakistan, saying that there was no point for the two countries to resume a dialogue at this stage.

In a public speech last week Advani strongly argued that the separation of Kashmir from India, by a plebiscite or otherwise, would have a “domino-like effect” and lead to the break-up of India. He described the disputed state as a symbol of India’s national unity, mistakenly seen by the western nations as “an issue of discord” between the two countries.

The UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, who was recently on a visit to the region and held discussions with the Indian and Pakistani leaders obviously felt deeply concerned over the stand-off and called for “a sustained dialogue” between the two countries not only to resolve the current crisis but also to ensure that the region would remain free of tensions over the longer term. He also offered his good offices for restarting a dialogue between the two countries.

While India has remained unmoved by the appeals for a resumption of talks between the Indian and Pakistani leaders, President Pervez Musharraf has refused to be deterred by New Delhi’s continuing negative stance. Addressing the senior armed forces officers at Rawalpindi on Friday, he stressed that he saw no reason for India to continue to escalate tensions on the border. Maintaining that peace was in the greater interest of both Pakistan and India, he made it clear that Pakistan would not be overawed by India’s show of force (the test-firing of the Agni missile) and had the capability and the resolve to thwart any threat to its security integrity.

He felt confident that Pakistan could inflict “unacceptable damage” on anyone bent on causing trouble for it. Gen Pervez Musharraf is also maintaining telephonic contact with the world leaders to keep them informed of the steps taken by his government to de-escalate the situation despite India’s warlike posture.

President Musharraf has consistently maintained that the present stand-off between India and Pakistan, triggered by a terrorist attack on India’s parliament building in New Delhi last month, could still be resolved by a peaceful dialogue. He has condemned the attack in the strongest possible terms, maintaining, of course, that no party or group in Pakistan could be held responsible for it except on the basis of hard evidence proving such an involvement.

However, for reasons of internal peace and security Gen. Pervez Musharraf has been concerned about the militancy and extremism of certain religious groups reputed to be involved in terrorist activity both within and outside the country. To put a stop to all this he has imposed a ban on several religious extremist groups and detained their leaders. He has also ordered the arrest of some 2,000 activists associated with these groups. The measures have been seen as constructive by most major powers but unfortunately so far there has been no positive reaction from the Indian side.

The bulk of the Indian armed forces continue to be massed on the border with Pakistan and on the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir. The Indian leaders have convinced themselves that the measures taken by Pakistan lack credibility as there has been no easing of the unrest in occupied Kashmir. Self-deceiving though it is, their convenient assumption is that the unrest in Kashmir is entirely the handiwork of Pakistan and not an indigenous armed struggle against occupation which has been going on the over 12 years. The plain truth is that Pakistan is not — and never was — in a position to switch on or off the Kashmiris’ armed struggle for self-determination.

The Indian leaders do not seem to realize the boldness of mind and initiative shown by President Pervez Musharraf in moving so strong and decisively against half a dozen of militant religious groups. The strength in terms of public support of these groups may be limited but the reach of their field cadres who resort to violence on the slightest pretext is quite sizable.

Civil society in Pakistan has for many years been riven by religious bigotry and violence — a far cry from Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnha’s vision of a Muslim homeland which he founded in 1947. He wanted Pakistan to be a modern, progressive, welfare state guided by the social, economic and cultural values of Islam. However, the leaders who came to the top after Jinnah’s death in 1948 allowed the nation to be steered away from the course set by the founder.

Effective power ultimately passed into the hands of civil and military bureaucracy, with the Muslim League party which spearheaded the struggle for Pakistan under Jinnah’s leadership was too weak and faction-ridden to resist the authoritarian and deviationist trends characterizing governance at the national and provincial levels.

In 1977 when the then army chief and a religious zealot, Gen Zia-ul-Haq, came to power by dislodging the government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in a coup, he capitalized on the opportunity to undermine the secular ideals of the founder of Pakistan and turned Pakistan into a near-theocracy. In his strategy for governance, he adopted a policy of harsh repression. When Gen zia eventually restored a distorted version of it, he made sure that the obscurantist measures adopted by him remained in place.

The Indian leadership must realize that this is the sort of Pakistan which Gen Pervez Musharraf inherited when he took over. As his recent interview to Newsweek makes it clear, the general is trying hard to restore Pakistan to the ideals and principles set forth by the Father of the Nation.

Top



The Guantanamo story


THE Bush administration has been forced to spend the past several days fending off a wave of international outrage and diplomatic protests about its treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners at the Guantanamo naval base in Cuba.

An indignant Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld spent an hour on television refuting “the questions, allegations and breathless reports,” which he attributed to “people who are either uninformed, misinformed or poorly informed.” That may be true; there is no evidence that the Guantanamo prisoners have been treated inhumanely. But if Guantanamo has been a public relations — as opposed to human rights — debacle, then the Bush administration has only itself to blame.

Rumsfeld has been toasted around Washington for his public reports on the war, but his handling of the prisoner issue has done much to ignite the international controversy. It stems largely from his own policy of strictly limiting media access to Guantanamo while offering accounts of U.S. handling of the prisoners that have been by turns vague, flippant or simply wrong. Rumsfeld improperly labeled all the prisoners as “unlawful combatants” and said, incorrectly, that they were not covered by the Geneva Convention.

He refused to provide a list of the prisoners or the countries they are from, and several times suggested that he was unconcerned about their treatment, which he said was better than what they had dealt out in Afghanistan.

Much of what he said suggested that the Bush administration would respect international law only so far as it chose to. In that context, it’s not surprising that America’s critics read brutalities into the sketchy media pool reports and photos coming from Cuba.

In appearances Rumsfeld and other administration officials have offered some reassuring clarifications. The defence secretary now says that “all detainees” are being treated “consistently with the principles of the Geneva Convention.” He acknowledged that the detainees cannot be designated as unlawful combatants — as opposed to prisoners of war — without a legal process, and must be released if they are not charged with crimes.

He indicated that some could be tried by criminal courts or courts-martial, some released to their home countries, and some sent before military tribunals; under the Geneva Convention, the latter procedure would be legitimate for those legally designated as unlawful combatants. Rumsfeld also said the Pentagon was studying the “right way” to release information about the identities of the prisoners. The administration has now suspended the transfer of additional groups of prisoners to Guantanamo, saying it wants to interview the ones it has. That seems a wise course; meanwhile, construction of more sturdy and permanent housing for detainees should be speeded, and more outside observers given a closer look at the facilities that exist.

Most important, the administration should make clear that it will respect the Geneva Convention in its handling of all detainees. Doing so would not hamper its ability to prosecute al-Qaida and Taliban members for the crimes they have committed, and might not require any significant change in the treatment of the prisoners. It will, however, make clear that the United States upholds international human rights law _ and it would at least weaken the unnecessary international tempest that has raged over Guantanamo this week.

—The Washington Post

Top



Top of Page





Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2005