Who’s next on the list?

ONE wonders whether the hawks in the Bush administration have already started priming for an attack on the next targets on their hit list. At least the propaganda part of it seems to have already begun. Speaking at a Pentagon news conference on Friday, Donald Rumsfeld warned Damascus and Tehran against the supply of military items to Baghdad and the entry of Iranian-backed volunteers into Iraq. These, the US defence secretary warned, were “hostile acts” and constituted a threat to the coalition forces. The only military item Rumsfeld specifically referred to was night vision goggles. While one can imagine what grave threat the night vision goggles must pose to those who have the cover of cruise missiles and bunker-busters, one is appalled at the jingoistic mind-set now at work in Washington. Neither Syria nor Iran has a modern defence establishment. Whatever military hardware that Syria possesses has been gathering dust since the collapse of the Soviet Union, while Iran’s arms were largely wiped out during the long war that Saddam Hussein had imposed on that country with full US backing. Thus, neither country is in a position to help Iraq in a way that could significantly influence the course of the war or affect its ultimate outcome. But the menacing tone of Rumsfeld’s warning is unmissable.

Unable to secure a UN approval for their war of aggression, the US and UK have imposed it on Iraq against the will of the people of the world — including their own people. For that reason alone, all nations of the world — irrespective of race, religion and geography — have a moral duty to help Iraq safeguard its freedom and territorial integrity. Syria has already denied that it is supplying any military arms and equipment to Iraq, while the Iranian reaction is not yet available. But the truth is that Syria and Iran have special reasons to be concerned about the attack on Iraq because one of them — Iran — is a member of George Bush’s “axis of the evil.” Syria has not yet been officially included in that “axis” but it is already a “rogue” state, its “rogueness” stemming from Damascus’s resolute support to the cause of Palestinian liberation and the part it played in pushing the Israelis out of south Lebanon. For these reasons, Syria’s positive role in the cause of freedom is a thorn in the flesh of America’s pro-Zionist media and the pro-Israeli lobby in the American establishment. For similar reasons, Iran is a “rogue” state because it has relentlessly supported Hezbollah in its struggle against the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon. This support to the cause of the people of Palestine is something on which Syria and Iran will never compromise. For that reason, they fear that they may be the next targets of America’s “pre-emptive” military action.

There never was a strong possibility that America’s Iraq war would remain localized. The warning to Syria and Iran shows which way things may move next. Clearly, if the war drags on, it would be impossible for many states— not necessary Muslim or regional — to remain indifferent to the spectacle of death and human suffering in Iraq. Sooner or later, even France and Germany, besides Russia, may not be able to confine their role to mere criticism of the war but to explore ways of bringing to an end. What precise form this takes is difficult to predict, but it is in Washington’s own interests not to treat other nations and the world at large with contempt and rush into actions which may spiral into a situation potentially more dangerous for peace and stability.

Skewed perspective

TRUE to form, New Delhi and Islamabad have been carefully sifting through the text of Thursday’s joint US-UK statement on Kashmir to see how they can use its contents to their respective advantage. While the Indians have largely endorsed the statement, Pakistan has welcomed its call for a dialogue but expressed reservations about the reference to “cross-border infiltration.” The statement, jointly signed by US Secretary of State Colin Powell and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, asks India and Pakistan to resume talks and states that the US and the UK are eager to help both countries start a process “aimed at building confidence and resolving outstanding differences, including Kashmir.” Islamabad has repeatedly called for talks with India, but the latter has refused to budge from its inflexible position and has firmly slammed the door on any dialogue until the so-called “cross-border terrorism” stopped. Tensions between the two countries escalated dramatically following the attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001. While India blamed Pakistan for the attack, Islamabad denied all involvement in the incident. The attack led to the massing of Indian troops along the border and brought the two nuclear powers close to what could have been a catastrophic war. It was only after much international pressure and prodding, especially from the US, that India decided to pull back its troops. While spurning all offers for dialogue, India has continued to see a Pakistani hand behind every violent incident in Kashmir, and even elsewhere in that country. The recent massacre of 24 Hindus in held Kashmir last week was also promptly blamed on Pakistan.

Islamabad has taken exception to the part of the US-UK statement that urges Islamabad to “do its utmost to discourage any acts of violence by militants in Kashmir.” Islamabad has consistently denied that it is involved, directly or indirectly, in any such activity. Accordingly, it has expressed its disappointment that there is no mention in the Powell-Straw document of the gross human rights violations in occupied Kashmir by Indian forces. While the recent massacre of Hindus was mentioned, there was no reference to the deaths of thousands of Muslims in Kashmir over the years. The Indians, meanwhile, are pleased that the statement “recognizes” that Pakistan has not fulfilled its commitment to halt all cross-border infiltration.

The truth of the matter, however, is far more complex than the Indians would have the world believe. The uprising in Kashmir has been raging for the last 14 years without showing any signs of coming to an end, despite the presence of more than half a million Indian troops in the troubled state. It is naive to suggest that such a development could be sustained for that long by armed militants moving across the border. The struggle is clearly motivated by the Kashmiris’ desire for self-determination and has been turned into a process of militant assertion by India’s policy of brutal suppression. Thousands of people have died in the process, countless detainees have ‘disappeared’, and many more have been severely tortured and maimed and women subjected to abuses. To ensure against cross-border infiltration, Pakistan has proposed the strengthening and posting of UN Military Observers Group along the Line of Control and has called for the stationing of neutral observers to monitor cross-border movement. But India remains opposed to this too. The point is that it is only through dialogue with Pakistan and representatives of the Kashmiris that the problem can be peacefully resolved. Attempts to present the Kashmir tragedy as a simple case of terrorism is cynical and remain the main obstacle to progress towards a resolution of this conflict by peaceful means.