DURING the cold war, a kind of balance of terror kept the peace between superpowers, though it often led to destruction of peace between smaller nations. The USSR’s collapse, so we are told, was the result of its preoccupation with the grand objective of ‘national security,’ to which it subordinated all other considerations and the policy led to totalitarianism!

The recent statements by some American leaders show that the remaining superpower is following a similar, if not the same, path. It is a paradox that the ‘victor’ in the cold war perceives itself under threat to a greater degree and is embarking on ever more hazardous courses in the name of its defence that could only be viewed with concern by the rest of the world.

US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld’s June 2002 statement that “the greatest threat to western civilization may lurk in unknown unknowns” is said to have baffled even the NATO allies. By this cryptic statement, Rumsfeld proposes that the US and its allies could not wait for ‘absolute proof’ before taking action against groups and states suspected of acquiring weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This opens up enormous possibilities for unilateral aggressive action in the name of preemption.

Unless there is immediate provocation or an imminent danger of aggression, pre-emptive action by one country against another is not recognized as legal. It is a recipe for vindictive actions that would not cease once they begin. Hence, while the Israeli pre-emptive air strikes on the neighbouring Arab states in the Six-Day war in 1967 were considered justified by many western states because they were preceded by the threat of war, the Israeli F-16s’ pre-emptive strike in 1981 on Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, on the plea that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons, were not. Neither Margaret Thatcher nor Ronald Reagan approved of the attack or the Israeli claim that it was in ‘self defence’ under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The UN Security Council condemned the Israeli strike. The United States joined in the condemnation.

The US has often resorted to retaliation before, in response to terrorist attacks on its interests worldwide, even though there was no decisive ‘proof’ against its victims. Reagan’s ‘pre-emptive’ air strikes against Libya in 1986, Clinton’s cruise missile attack on Afghanistan and on the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan in 1998 [ironically, the Sudanese factory was found later to be actually manufacturing medicines and drugs, but the terrible damage had been done] and so on.

Since terrorism is perceived as a common threat by governments around the world, America received widespread support against the unknown terrorists. The UN Security Council emdorsed its retaliatory action against Afghanistan even though no positive proof was provided by the US of the direct involvement of the Taliban in the September 11 attacks. The counter arguments against such a move were lost in the din and noise whipped up by the American media over the outrage.

Now President Bush’s Secretary of Defence has propounded a theory that goes beyond retaliation, into the dangerous and yet illegal [according to accepted international law] realm of pre-emptive action.

All such action is inspired by the underlying premise of US policy that the ‘spread of weapons technology’ should be prevented — by force if necessary, the rhetoric regarding ‘conflict between good and evil,’ ‘rogue states’ and their ‘support to terrorism’ notwithstanding. All kinds of rewards as well as threats are used to this end, ranging from offers of aid to economic sanctions to threats of military strikes. What this brand of rationalization ignores is that it is precisely the [fundamentally] hegemonic nature of policy being pursued by Washington that heightens the feeling of insecurity in other states and invites nuclear proliferation and arms race.

Thus there is talk of justifying ‘preemption’ and destroying other states’ military capability on a presumption of aggression and support to terrorism. This policy of justifying preemption of hypothetical threats is inducing the US to dispense with the formality of providing evidence against states that in its view are engaged in producing WMDs. The logic behind the idea is that the consequences of an attack by WMDs will be devastating and the initiative for such an attack lies with the terrorists and terrorist states.

Essentially, however, it is the logic of force, apart from being a manifestation of the arrogance of power. Can it ever be justified morally or even logically? Can it be taken, in the Kantian sense, to be a categorical imperative? And how long can the spread of nuclear arms technology be prevented by force? These questions need to be pondered by the proponents of preemption.

A rehearsal of what may come to pass in a world where preemption becomes an accepted policy is already visible in Palestine. Preemption theory being practised by Sharon in the occupied Palestine territories is wreaking havoc there, providing a fore-taste of what we may have in the world on a massive scale if these ideas are applied on a world scale by some powers having global reach. The cycle of violence in Palestine is showing no sign of abatement as the armed wing of Hamas declared on August 1, after the Israeli air attack on Gaza city killed a number of Palestinians, that it will kill 100 Israelis for any new attack on any of its leaders again.

Such happenings are bad enough on a regional level; surely they would be more devastating on a global scale. The US is now engaged in manufacturing new generation nuclear weapons of ever greater destructive power, and appears to be ready to use them preemptively. Its pro-Israel policy in the Middle East and its obsession with the ouster of Saddam Hussein to ‘preempt’ Iraq’s acquisition of WMDs can plunge the entire region into chaos.

For the real reasons for these unilateralist policies one has to go back to the heady days of the short-lived euphoria in the West over the collapse of the Soviet Union that was followed by a peculiar sense of disorientation and loss of bearings among the remaining superpower’s leaders and some intellectuals. This was largely due to the absence of new identifiable or perceived ‘enemy’ that could give them a deep sense of antagonism.

Francis Fukuyama’s euphoric view of the ‘end of history’ failed to do that but Huntington’s new paradigm of an international system in which he saw a ‘clash of civilizations’ as the paramount impetus behind international relations in the future gave them what they were looking for — a ground for rallying of the West behind the US.

Now this so-called ‘clash of civilizations’ has always been there, in some form in different periods of history. But it now comes in handy as a scarecrow to justify and legitimize massive military preparations which the absence of an ‘enemy’ to target had unsettled. Or it may be a veiled declaration of war, an effort to stifle all potential opposition to American hegemony through brute military force. It advances national self-interest by portraying the threat as a perceived ‘clash of cultures’, a conflict of ‘ideologies,’ or religions or ‘ways of life.’

Call it what you will, it could be an effort to precipitate a military conflict, knowing in whose favour lies the balance of power at the present juncture in history. This advantage may not be there two or three decades from now. As Huntington himself admits in his book “Clash of Civilization”, the ability of the US to coerce the smaller states into falling in line is rapidly declining.

Instead of confidence-building, a massive effort is being made to popularize the policy of confrontation among the masses in the western ‘open society’ by manipulating the truth and curtailing civil liberties.

According to Huntington, the western civilization’s main clash is with the Islamic and ‘Confucian’ civilizations, which, he says, differ in many important respects, but are coming closer because of their common interest in resisting western hegemony.

The unilateralism being promoted and practised by the current US administration is a classic case where conclusion is arrived at in advance and justification given later. This is clear from the real reasons Huntington cities for the ‘inevitable clash’: the rise in the economic power of China and the demographic explosion in the Islamic world, both of which are perceived as dangers for the West.

A further reason is the distress felt at the claim that both these civilizations regard their own culture, philosophy and values as superior to those of the West. The ‘clash’ with the Islamic civilization is deeper in that the latter is thought to lay claim to ‘universal values,’ something that the West thinks it has a prior claim to.

It is obvious that the ‘clash of civilizations’ has suddenly become a focus of interest, inspired as it is by a desire to preempt the rise of challengers to American hegemony. It is no coincidence that this has come soon after the collapse of the USSR as a ‘viable threat.’

If one goes by the realist school of thought of international relations that seems to guide American policy, the answer lies in balance of power, and that will only lead to the proliferation of WMDs, the very objective that Washington is so keen to prevent. Overwhelming western superiority in conventional weapons as well as high technology makes them the only practicable ‘equalizer.’

Recent reports show the dangerous trend in US policy of giving up its long-standing stance of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states (except when they attack the US in collusion with a nuclear state.) Deliberate leaks of Pentagon’s “classified information” shows that the proponents of preemption even claim moral high ground by saying that the use of tactical nuclear warheads could actually reduce ‘collateral damage.’ This conveniently ignores the short and long-term consequences of radiation from a nuclear blast as well as the political and environmental consequences of this dangerous course.

This is an area in which even NATO fears to tread (with the possible exception of Blair’s government), admitting that the use of any nuclear weapons would be catastrophic in human and environmental terms. Europe’s proximity to the so-called ‘rogue states’ partly deters it from adopting such a dangerous course, but the US proponents of these policies are oblivious of the dangers because the very possibility of conflict has a salutary effect on the good fortunes of the powerful and influential American military-industrial complex.

Pakistan is specially vulnerable to the idea of preemption, given the charges that are often levelled against it by India and even by the West regarding the so-called support to terrorism. Thus Pakistan has to be wary of bizarre theories that justify preemptive strikes without proper evidence of an immediate threat.

Totalitarianism is often the result of an obsession with power, and the Americans would do well to guard against the rise of totalitarianism in their midst, taking a cue from the history of the fascist societies of Europe. By their own actions, the US policy-makers are inadvertently encouraging an arms race as well as extremism is various parts of the world.

YOU name a scam. We have it. There is no segment of life that we have not polluted. Defence deals, telecommunication contracts, fiscal jugglery and, more recently, the allotment of petrol pumps — the list is endless.

Our politicians and government servants have perfected by now a system where nobody is accountable or held guilty. We have ceased to have sensitivity or shame because we have stopped looking at ourselves in the mirror.

In the hawala case, crores of rupees were given to political leaders. A diary was found where the exact amount of money was mentioned against their names. The nation was horrified. Recipients were themselves embarrassed. The case went right up to the Supreme Court. The then chief justice threatened to reveal the identity of those who had tried to exert pressure on the court to drop the case. Still nothing happened in the end. Everything went on as before.

When the case came before the Supreme Court, the trial court had already let off the leaders of the political parties. It wanted the diary entries to be corroborated. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took its own time to gather information and then dragged its feet while filing the charge sheets. It was not only frustrating but also unbelievable. Obviously, there was more to it than what met the eye.

But it is nothing new. It always happens that way. This is our experience. Somewhere along the line, the establishment takes over. It sees to it that no feather is ruffled. Too many high-ups are involved in too many scandals. Hushing up the matter is considered prudent.

In the hawala case, the Supreme Court ticked off the CBI for not taking “earlier action.” It even said that, “either the investigation or the prosecution or both were lacking.” Yet the rulers were not embarrassed. Nor ashamed either, though they were themselves involved in the scam. However, one good thing came out of it. That was: the Supreme Court’s proposal to establish a statutory vigilance commission. Many members of parliament did not like the court encroach on the legislative territory. But what was the court supposed to do when parliament did not act? A joint committee of the two houses was constituted to process the Supreme Court’s proposal.

I was a member of the committee which was elected to consider the Central Vigilance Bill. In the final recommendation, members did not give the vigilance commission any real power — neither autonomy nor superintendence over the CBI. It suited the political parties to have it that way. The CBI as a department in the home ministry was preferable to supervision by the vigilance commission.

I submitted a dissenting note, the only one in the committee’s report. My proposal was to have a separate, independent investigative agency, autonomous like the election commission, submitting its reports to parliament directly. I felt that the agency, with its own set-up, could serve the Lokpal (ombudsman) if and when appointed. The suggestion remained a non-starter because the other 39 members of the committee, both from the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, did not support me.

My opposition was enough for Minister of Parliamentary Affairs Pramod Mahajan to see that I was not nominated to any other committee. Our group of independents — 16 members — recommended my name for the committee on the stock exchange scam. The assignment was to find out the misuse of private savings invested in scrips like the Unit Trust of India (UTI). Mahajan said the group could nominate anyone else but me. My protest to the prime minister was of no avail.

My other point of dissent was against the committee’s restoration of a “single directive,” which meant the government’s prior permission for inquiry against high-level bureaucrats. The Supreme Court had rejected the practice. But our committee went back to it. The restoration of permission to the government is creating more havoc than before. Once again there is shielding of delinquent officers. They are pliable, birds of the same feather, which flock together. Public servants who carry out the errands of political masters go scot-free because the permission for their prosecution is never forthcoming.

Some sort of quid pro quo has come to be established. The officer concerned may be making money on the side and political bosses may be keeping their eyes shut because of the “services” he renders to them. Corrupt officers have come to rule the roost due to their proximity to the seats of power. In fact, public servants have now ceased to be aware of what is right and what is wrong. Even if they are, they may not have the desire to act according to what is right.

We have seen how the ethical considerations inherent in public behaviour became generally dim during the emergency (1975-77). Government servants became willing tools of tyranny. They followed the dictates of rulers and their extra-constitutional accomplishes. The nation went through hell.

The N.N. Vohra Committee has pointed out the existing nexus between politicians, civil servants and criminals — almost a parallel government. Corrupt deals, dishonest decision and wrong methods are the fallout. Why the report, more than five years old, has not been followed up is a question the nation should ask itself.

Against this background, the petrol pump allotment scandal is only a symptom, not the disease. The disease is political thuggery. Both politicians and bureaucrats have joined hands to benefit each other. The prime minister has acted quickly. His cancellation of all petrol pump allotments since 2000 is commendable. But strangely enough, he has not agreed to the dismissal of Petroleum Minister Ram Naik. Parliament was not allowed to run for several days.

The opposition demanded the resignation of Ram Naik but it was not accepted. And parliament has been adjourned sine die. Why hasn’t Ram Naik been sacked? If nothing else, he is morally responsible. Since the end of the Lal Bahadur Shastri era 36 years ago, India has been morally going down the hill. This is at the expense of the poor and the downtrodden. A decade ago, only 12 paise in a rupee for development reached the lower half.

Now it is less than 10 paise. The main reason is that political parties are not interested in the process of cleansing. An opportunity had come when the election commission, following the Supreme Court’s directive, asked the candidates to disclose their assets and of their spouses and dependents at the time of filing their nomination papers. All political parties are opposed to the order. They want legislation to amend the election commission’s order.

According to the bill, which will come up before the next session of parliament, a candidate needs to file a list of his or her assets and that of the spouse not before contesting but after getting elected. Why should the voters be denied information about the candidates when they are in the field? In fact, the election commission’s order that a candidate must reveal his background — whether he has ever been charge-sheeted for any criminal activity or jailed for any crime — has also not been to the liking of the MPs. This part is also sought to be watered down.

I am at a loss to make out why the sitting MPs and assembly members have not declared their assets so far. After the election commission’s order, they are bound to do so. But there is no response from the MPs and MLAs.

The only way may be for the public to build pressure on that count. This may initiate a people’s movement of sorts.

THE recent bomb attack on a missionary hospital in Texila brings to four the number of such attacks over the last few months targeting the Christian community. The past three months have also witnessed two suicide bombings in Karachi directed at foreign nationals and interests.

While the places of these occurrences and their targets indicate separate motivations and perhaps, the involvement of separate groups, there is no doubting that Pakistan now faces a grim extremist threat resulting from its involvement in the war on terrorism and its simultaneous internal efforts to rein in the religious militants.

Combating terrorism is a complex and daunting task, but for Pakistan the problem has an added dimension. For two decades officialdom has turned a blind eye, for reasons well known and now proven counter-productive, to the proliferation of militant elements and groups and to their frequent recourse to terrorism. Indeed, their usefulness in influencing events across the north-western and eastern borders had earned them protection from sources more powerful than their political and religious backers and emboldened them in their internal activities. In the existing charged political atmosphere and external threats, this support is proving to be one of the principal hindrances in the way of the current efforts to contain them.

So far no definitive Al Qaeda connection with the post-9/11 terrorist attacks in Pakistan has been established. Besides, the government is to deny the possibility of these better-trained foreign terrorists, with more sophisticated means, teaming up with the local extremists. Already the targeting of western interests and nationals by suicide bombers belonging to previously unknown groups has affected Pakistan’s relations with its allies and further pressures in this area will add to the complications.

But the reaction of the western allies has been somewhat puzzling and unfair to their principal logistical partner. The post-9/11 incidents of terrorism in Pakistan have not been so wanton or frequent as to warrant hasty closure of consular offices and evacuation of personnel. The directly affected countries — France and the US — and their allies have unflinchingly risked more dangerous conditions for their employees in other countries without recourse to similar steps. Their decision may lead the terrorists into believing they are succeeding in their objective of causing panic and scare among the western countries and driving a wedge of misunderstanding between them and Pakistan, their principal ally in the war against terrorism.

But it is also possible that the foreign governments are not quite convinced of the effectiveness of the anti-terrorism operation being conducted by the law enforcement agencies. They feel uncertain about the future because these agencies’ focus is on deterring, through heightened armed presence, further attacks on diplomatic premises and personnel rather than on identifying and eliminating terrorist groups. Not many arrests are being made nor enough preventive or control measures are being taken.

But in one area the reaction of the foreign governments is unwarranted. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin during his recent visit to Pakistan stated that French engineers would return to Karachi to fulfil the submarine-building contractual obligations after “standard operating procedures” being developed by French security were put in place.” This is a surprising observation because earlier the French government had confirmed it had no complaint about the security that was being provided to its nationals in Pakistan.

Of course, more needs to be done to control terrorism. Also there is room for improvement in the measures being taken against known extremist groups, such as those targeting the Christian community and the foreign nationals and visitors or those indulging in sectarian killings. Such groups, unlike anonymous suicide bombers, are traceable on the basis of predictable patterns and profiles and their likely targets. The absence of action in this area raises questions about the government’s intent and has a direct bearing on the assurances that Pakistan has extended regarding the state’s ability to control the militants, internally and externally.

If there were doubts in the past, now there are none regarding the sincerity of Pakistan’s top leadership in wanting to rid the country of the menace of terrorism and religious extremism. But, as in other areas of reforming, in the security management too there appears to be a schism between those pushing for major shifts in policy concerning extremists of various stripes and those that seek not only to obstruct change but believe it is possible to revert to the old ways once the US lowers its regional presence.

This manifests itself in a divergence between the stated policy and its implementation, resulting in the seeming reluctance of those charged with implementing anti-terrorist measures to apply the full force of the state to apprehend the wanted elements. Considering the serious threat posed to internal peace and stability by the forces of terrorism and extremism, it is strange that action against militant groups and elements should be slow and hesitant while the same law enforcement personnel do not hesitate to shoot to kill citizens protesting against anti-encroachment drives or to rough up striking school teachers or political workers.

Clearly there is need for a whole new approach to the campaign against terrorism. The US responded to 9/11 by promptly creating a Department of Homeland Security, which will coordinate the functions of several security and intelligence organizations, and by introducing unprecedented legal measures to facilitate the investigation of terrorist cells. In Pakistan, however, no such initiatives have been taken because there is a lack of agreement, within and outside the government, on who is to be classified as a terrorist and what groups are to be exempted from action.

There are indications also that the higher advisory levels of the government do not believe that the war on terrorism is a totality in which assault weapons in private hands, private militias, the armed militant groups of the political parties, illegal manufacture and trade in arms, the suppliers of sophisticated explosives are all interlinked in the terror chain. This is why the government has not introduced enabling legislation that would require the security agencies to go after these forces.

However, the recent decision to establish a special investigation group within the FIA is a step in the right direction as such a body should overcome the inter-provincial coordination and investigation hurdles that prevent the police from performing efficiently in dealing with the problem of illegal arms and different variants of terrorism.

There is equally compelling need for a change in the policy-making mindset. A principal obstacle appears to be the desire, for political reasons, not to upset the social peace traditionally maintained by influential political and religious leaders at the local level. Consequently, we find that the government, instead of taking severe punitive action, was advised to negotiate with a tribal chieftain of Balochistan who threatened an armed attack on the country’s major gas fields. Similarly, an NWFP politician has bargained successfully for lenient terms, in exchange for surrender, for a person charged with hosting and helping forty Chechens who shot and killed ten army personnel.

These decisions have implications. The tribal and local religious militias to whom extremists and terrorists on the run often turn for help and refuge. Leniency towards those who take up arms against the state, as in the Malakand division some years ago, weakens the writ of the government rather than strengthen it. Lower-level officials may begin to exercise their own discretion regarding suspects who are wanted for taking up arms against external forces. This is no speculation considering that hundreds of wanted Taliban and Al Qaeda activists evaded capture by buying their freedom or benefiting from the generally sympathetic cultural and social milieu that exists in Pakistan, particularly in the rural hinterland.

Hopefully, the attention of the government will not be distracted by domestic politics and the threat from India for it to come up with a unified and all-embracing policy that covers all aspects of the terror chain and the threat it poses to Pakistan’s safety and security.