Coping with Afghanistan challenges

FOR the fourth time since the Soviet withdrawal, in which Pakistan played a key role, the embassy of Pakistan was ransacked in Kabul by a mob of students on July 8. The factions in the Northern Alliance, which now dominate the interim government headed by President Hamid Karzai were apparently involved, in what was an outrage that could not have been perpetrated without official connivance or complicity. Indeed, the governor of the state bank was reported to have led one of the demonstrations.

Meanwhile, Afghan interior minister Ali Ahmed Jalali, during his recent visit to Islamabad, assured Pakistani leaders that his country was eager to have cordial relations with Pakistan.

After the Pakistan ambassador announced the closing of the mission, as a mark of protest, President Karzai spoke to President Musharraf, expressing regret for the violation of diplomatic premises, and offering to make good the losses. For all the resentments that exist in Afghanistan against Pakistan, the maintenance of a working relationship is essential for this land-locked country with a neighbour having the longest border as well as the most crucial transit facilities. The mission has since been reopened amid promises of better security.

This time, the attack on the embassy was said to have followed alleged Pakistani advances into Afghan territory across the Durand line. Pakistan has made it clear that there was no deliberate violation of the Afghan territory, in a part of the tribal area where the border is not demarcated. The Pakistani forces have been involved in anti-terrorist operations as a part of the commitment to apprehend Al Qaeda and Taliban elements involved in terrorism. Given the historical background of relations with the Taliban till the 9/11 events, and the feeling running high among a large part of the Pakhtun population, the situation becomes much too explosive.

In principle, the Karzai government is also committed to anti-terrorist operations, and works closely with the US forces looking for the remnants of the terrorists. However, the instability inside Afghanistan has continued as the Pakhtoon population still has the memories of heavy civilian casualties during the post 9/11 operations, and feels neglected by a government setup dominated by the non-Pakhtoon factions. The international security assistance force is barely able to police Kabul, the while the warlords control most of the country.

The situation in which Pakistan finds itself has a certain historical background about it. During the Soviet occupation, Pakistan played the leading role in supporting the Afghan struggle against the Soviet Union, paying a heavy price in Moscow’s hostility that found expression in the arming of India. Pakistan also gave shelter to three and a half million refugees, and provided sanctuary to most of the Mujahideen factions operating against the foreign occupation. The aid, military as well as humanitarian for the Afghan cause was also channelled through Pakistan. Some of the problems confronting Pakistan, particularly the culture of drugs and kalashnikovs, was a by-product of the crucial decade of the 1980s.

Following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, the Najibullah regime survived for almost three years and Pakistan played a role in fostering Afghan unity through the Peshawar and Islamabad accords. As the civil war continued, the Taliban phenomenon was born around 1994, with links to religious schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. After they occupied Kabul and extended their sway to the north, Pakistan recognized the Taliban in 1997. As a result, the factions of the Northern Alliance turned hostile to Pakistan.

When Pakistan joined the coalition against terrorism, after the 9/11 events, its territory and facilities were used in the operations against the Taliban. Consequently, after the coalition occupied the country using the Northern Alliance forces as allies, the Taliban elements, who were mostly Pakhtoons also turned hostile to Pakistan. President Musharraf has had to deal with an Afghanistan where a majority of ethnic groups has some grouse against Pakistan, despite its crucial role during the ten-year struggle against the Soviet Union.

Given this legacy, the Pakistan government has pursued policies designed to win Afghan goodwill. Islamabad has supported the UN based efforts for political reconstruction, and President Musharraf was the first foreign head of state to greet President Hamid Karzai after his accession to the post. Pakistan has scrupulously avoided backing any faction, and sought to extend a helpful hand with reconstruction, for which it contributed $100 million, as well as financial support for the running of the government in Kabul.

The Northern Alliance holds the key ministries and generally dominates the official setup. On account of the Taliban factor, the Pakhtuns are poorly represented and a lot of them nurse grievances over the losses suffered during the US bombardment. The anti-terrorist operations are mainly focused on Pakhtoon areas which accentuates this hostility. The Taliban inside Afghanistan have recently regrouped and launched attacks on the US and the ISAF forces. Pakistan, which is playing a major role in the anti-terrorist operations, also attracts hostility and the recent clashes in the Nangarhar province arose out of such operations. The Pakhtoon resentment towards the Musharraf government’s policy of cooperation with the US had manifested itself during the October 2002 general elections in Pakistan, as evident from the success achieved by the candidates of the religious parties’ alliance, the MMA (Muttahida-Majlis-I-Amal). President Musharraf not only has to carry on the anti-terrorist campaign, but also faces the challenge of mobilizing moderate public opinion within Pakistan to maintain its image as a progressive and enlightened Islamic country.

Inside Afghanistan, the recent stepping up of anti-terrorist operations in eastern Afghanistan in the Pakhtoon belt has led to an upwelling of anti-occupation feeling. With the US forces active inside Afghanistan, Pakistani forces have been operating close to the Durand Line, in an area where the boundary is not clearly demarcated. Local clashes with the Afghan forces have fed propaganda that Pakistani forces had advanced deep into Afghanistan. Even President Karzai made some strong statements on border violations though investigations have proved that such violations have not been deliberate and were confined to short distances.

Within Afghanistan, a new factor that is adding to the pressure on Pakistan is the opening of several Indian consulates in major Afghan cities, including Jalalabad, Herat and Kandahar. Without major consular or trade interests, these missions are believed to be used to fan hostility against Pakistan. There were reasons to believe that the sectarian outrage in Quetta had its roots in Afghanistan. One can only hope that with the move for a dialogue for settling bilateral issues, the temptation to rock the boat for Pakistan in Afghanistan will be resisted.

There are other players in Afghanistan pursuing their own agendas, among them Iran and Russia, apart from the dominant superpower, the US and its allies in Europe. The main US goal continues to be rooting out the remnants of terrorism for which cooperation with Pakistan is important. The US has yet to give proper priority to the twin tasks of stabilization and reconstruction as is evident from the chaotic situation within the country.

Attention is currently focused on the role the NATO might play, when it assumes responsibility for the ISAF next month. Representing European sensitivity to the messy political and economic situation in Afghanistan, NATO Secretary General Robertson is upbeat about the role the NATO can play. Although its mandate will not exceed two years, he has expressed the hope that the alliance would play a decisive role in bringing political stability and promoting economic reconstruction in Afghanistan. There have been consultations at the ministerial level among the NATO members on the tasks confronting them in Afghanistan. UN Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi has been hoping that the mandate of the ISAF might be extended beyond Kabul.

The post-war situation in both Iraq and Afghanistan underlines the need to address the real problems there, and to associate the local people with strategies to resolve them. Afghanistan presents a picture of anarchy and poor development twenty months after the fall of the Taliban. Poppy cultivation has expanded and the UN plans for de-weaponization have not made much headway, with a large part of the country unsafe for the UN supervised activities.

Afghanistan clearly requires a priority in its own right, which has been affected by the Iraq operations. The problems of reconstruction have yet to be addressed seriously since the law and order situation continues to rule out major progress. The time is approaching when a new constitution would be adopted by June 2004, and elections held. Pakistan must show both patience and firmness in facing up to the challenges arising in Afghanistan.

The Afghan Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali has addressed the security issues to resolve misunderstandings about border operations, which are also being investigated by tripartite bodies including representatives of Afghanistan, Pakistan and the US. Increased contacts between the two governments are desirable, to restore the traditional brotherly ties. Afghanistan needs Pakistan’s transit facilities, and a stable Afghanistan is essential for Pakistan’s access to Central Asia. The two countries will gain from a good-neighbourly relationship.

Many faces of terrorism

BRITISH prime minister Tony Blair, in his address to the joint session of the US Congress on July 17, appealed to the United States to confront terrorism and tyranny “with values, not just guns”. In a speech, regarded by the British observers as the most important Blair ever made before an overseas audience since he took office six years ago, he told the US law makers that terrorism “can only be confronted with the universal values of human spirit” — values which, he agreed, are not uniquely American or western.

The underscoring by America’s closest ally of the importance of values in dealing with terrorism is timely as well as much needed. Soon after the 9/11 tragedy, a bewildered US president asked: “Why do they hate us?”. This was not a rhetorical question. Bush and the American people really wanted to know the reasons behind the rage for the homicidal attacks. The US president asked the right question but gave the wrong answer.

By arguing that the reason for terrorist attacks was the very greatness of America — envy of America’s wealth and its military power — he overlooked the deeper issues. As the recent survey conducted by the Washington based prestigious Pew Research Centre shows the real problem lies neither in the lack of democracy in the Islamic world nor in the so called “clash of civilizations”. Even non-Muslim democratic nations like the French, Germans and the Spaniards are highly critical of the US motives and policies.

The resentment in the Islamic world against the US policies is not unjustified because American attitude towards Muslim problems (Palestine, Kashmir, Chechenya) has not been even-handed and fair. Washington’s attitude towards Muslim problems has decidedly been different from the one it has adopted in regard to non-Muslim problems like the IRA in Northern Ireland and the ETA in Spain which is fighting for Basque independence. Hundreds of innocent people have lost their lives to IRA bombs placed in pubs or outside department stores yet Gerry Adams of IRA’s is considered a respectable leader by Washington.

After 9/11, no one disagrees with the importance of fighting terrorism. But there is just one problem: there is no agreement on what “terrorism” means. For the last thirty years the United Nations has been trying, without any success, to arrive at a definition acceptable to all its members.

The Israelis say it is terrorism when a suicide bomber blows himself in a passenger bus or in the line up for a discotheque. The Palestinians retort that it is terrorism when Israeli troops blow up a family’s house or shoot a Palestinian kid throwing stones. New Delhi says that militants fighting its rule over Jammu and Kashmir are terrorists but the overwhelming majority of the Kashmiri people and Islamabad call them “freedom fighters”. Similar has been the argument in the case of Chechenya.

History is replete with instances when legitimate freedom movements have used terrorism in some form as an effective weapon. Could Ireland have been free from British rule without the bomb and the bullet? What shall we call De Valera (Irish prime minister and president) a freedom fighter or a terrorist? The same might be said of Kenya where the nationalists used terrorist tactics in getting freedom from the British. Would the French have left Algeria if the Algerian freedom fighters had not set off bombs in cafes to drive the French out? Therefore, all political violence cannot be regarded as terrorism. Can we call the Frenchmen who took up arms to fight against German occupation “terrorists”?

Also, how shall we describe three well-known figures of recent times — Israel’s Menachem Begin, PLO’s Yasser Arafat and South Africa’s Nelson Mandela. Are they heroes or terrorists? Menachem Begin, who became famous as a terrorist of the infamous Irgun group, later became the prime minister of Israel? During his terrorist days, he used to say: “I exist because I kill.” But later, Begin signed peace treaty with Egypt’s Anwar Sadat at Camp David. Yasser Arafat, leader of the PLO, who was considered a terrorist for many years by Israel and the West, is now chairman of the Palestinian Authority and hopes to lead an independent Palestine one day.

The case of Nelson Mandela is the most interesting of them all. He and his African National Congress waged a violent struggle against a cruel, racist regime. It was no doubt a just struggle., but, nevertheless, it was a struggle marked by violence, blood and terror. We all know that Nelson Mandela once led a struggle against the white-led government of South Africa that included car bombings, assassinations and land-mine explosions. But no one calls him a terrorist. He is perhaps the most respected statesman alive today.

However, President Bush says: “There is no such thing as a good terrorist.” But Yasser Arafat argues: “Whoever stands for a just cause and fights for the freedom and liberation of his land from the invaders, settlers and colonialists cannot possibly be called a terrorist.” Whether one is called a terrorist or a freedom-fighter depends on whose side one is on.

Nelson Mandela himself has provided perhaps the most satisfying answer to the perennial question. Pointing out that many people once described as terrorists are leading governments today, Mandela says: “ Terrorism is a relative term. When you succeed — people are prepared to accept you and have dealings with you as head of state. You become a terrorist if your aims and objectives fail.”

American success in their fight against terrorism depends, inter alia, on their keeping in view an important lesson of history. Lasting peace can never be achieved without a fair settlement of disputes. There would have been no Nazi Germany or Hitler, and consequently no Second World War, if the Treaty of Versailles had not been so one-sided and unfair. In his recent address to the US Congress, Blair has rightly argued that the threat of terrorism will not recede until justice is seen to be done in the form of a genuine, durable peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Economic injustice is another important reason for today’s turmoil. But the problem is that the sole superpower, that can effortlessly afford a military budget larger than the entire economy of Australia or a country where people spend as much on lawn maintenance as the government of India collects in federal tax revenue, cannot easily understand the reality of a world in which 1.3 billion people get by on less than one dollar a day.

The world today is an internet wired, satellite covered global village. Pictures of the disproportionate affluence of the West, led by the United States, are beamed into the villages and urban slums of the Third World 24 hours a day. Osama bin Laden may have been wealthy himself but the resentment and rage, on which Al Qaeda and their cohorts feed, spring also from the miserable social and economic conditions of the dispossessed in the Islamic world.

These teeming millions are grappling every hour with the consequences of political corruption, incompetent governance, overpopulation, gross distortion in the distribution of wealth and resources with the result that they hardly share any of the benefits of modernity.

They are all the more resentful of the Americans because they are prolonging their misery by backing and supporting their corrupt and inept rulers.

The United States can conquer countries, subjugate nations and bring about a change of regime here and there to serve its interests. But that is not the way to win the hearts and souls of people and win the war against terror.

Washington has got to understand that terrorism is the long-standing symptom of injustice. True peace and security for the United States and the world at large will come about only when the US seriously sets about addressing the underlying issues of injustice, subjugation, disparity, dislocation and dispossession that have provoked the madness of our times.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.

Bids for Private Lynch story

LET’S hear it for CBS. It is the first network to make a serious bid for the Pvt. Jessica Lynch story. They have officially offered her exclusive interview rights with somebody like Mike Wallace, a $100 million movie, a programme on MTV, worldwide book rights and an office to handle advertising sponsorship.

The reason they could offer all these things is that CBS is part of Viacom, which owns a TV network, cable channels, a motion picture company, a giant book publishing company and an office that packages celebrity testimonials.

At the moment, Pvt. Lynch can’t respond to anyone because she is still in the Army and recovering from serious injuries.

This did not stop CBS from coming up with the offer. They maintain if they didn’t do it first another network would.

The Cross Breeding Broadcasting Network has also been putting a package together. The spokesperson, Sonia Spin, said, “We are now working on a plan to put the CBS offer to shame.”

“How could you possibly top them?”

“We’re going to offer Jessica her own reality show. Each week she will interview a platoon of Marines, paratroopers or Navy flyers and decide which one she will date.”

“The Pentagon will love that,” I said.

“And we’re offering to give her her own cable station in West Virginia. It’s like owning a money printing machine.”

“Will people be able to get ‘Law and Order,’ ‘Seinfeld’ and Jerry Springer on it?”

“Yes, and also war movies with John Wayne, Oral Roberts’ ministries and reruns of ‘The Guiding Light.”’

“I guess the big deal is the movie. How are you going to portray Jessica?”

“We are working on the script. We want Julia Roberts to play Pvt. Lynch and Arnold Schwarzenegger to play her foxhole pal.”

“I hope you can get him.”

“We can unless he runs for governor of California. If we can’t get Arnold, we’ll get Tom Cruise. Our writers have handed in the scene where Arnold and Jessica kill 65 Iraqi soldiers before they run out of ammunition.”

“Jessica says she can’t remember anything after her vehicle crashed,” I said.

“That is why we can write anything we want. In our movie, she gets captured and is taken to one of Saddam’s palaces. Then the big scene comes when Gene Hackman and Tom Hanks rescue her with the Delta Force and Navy SEALs. Of course the Pentagon will give us everything we need.”

“That tops anything CBS can do. And the book will follow?”

Sonia said, “We will get a ghost writer for Jessica like Jayson Blair. He is known for his imaginative writing and he can be trusted.”

I said, “The only thing left are the commercials.”

“We’ll have Jessica wearing her Army uniform, carrying a gun. She will do spots

for Avon, Bayer aspirin, McDonald’s hamburgers and GI Joe dolls.”

“Everything you have told me so far has class. Why the furor?”

“All the other conglomerates are jealous. We are only doing what any network would do, except we will be doing it better.”

“I would hate to be Jessica, the way everyone keeps throwing money at her.”

Ms. Spin said, “That’s the American Dream.” —Dawn/ Tribune Media Services.

The bedrock of goodwill

NOOR Fatima, the two-and-a-half-year-old child from Pakistan, said all. She was a front-page story throughout India for days. From the time she was brought to Bangalore for a heart operation, the entire nation’s eyes were focused on her. There were prayers on people’s lips.

Money poured unsolicited. The Hindus, much hated by many Pakistanis, were the first to send cheques. Flowers and toys filled the room of her parents, Sajjad and Toyyaba. They were so overwhelmed that they sent a letter to a leading local daily, The Deccan Herald, asking people not to give them money when they said they had it in plenty.

Still the flow of money never stopped. They converted it into a Dosti (Friendship) Fund, nearly Rs. 10 lakh, at the disposal of the hospital.

What this indicates is the feeling of kinship the people in India have for those across the border. On every occasion of mutual help, this love soars. It will be a mistake to equate it with an expression of normal human reaction. It is much more than that.

It shows the deep desire the common man in India has to befriend the Pakistanis. Time and tragedies have not been able to kill it, not even three wars and Kargil. Even after 55 years of ugly propaganda on both sides the basic understanding stays.

The manner in which we nine parliamentarians were showered with love and affection showed that people in Pakistan were equally keen to have friendly ties. Though India still remains a model for them in many ways, they are ahead of us. They criticize our government, not the people. The desire to begin a new chapter of friendship is increasing on both sides. But when a Vaishno Devi-type incident takes place and seven pilgrims are killed, there is a pain deep down the heart in India. It is disappointment, more so disillusionment. It is as if the hope for conciliation was misplaced. The same reaction is true of the attack on the Northern Command military formation at Akhnoor in Kashmir last week.

Believe me, I have heard strong criticism of killings by militants in Pakistan. Many have felt aggrieved — and let down — when the attacks have been made on temples, buses or other things. They think that their government might have a hand in it but they feel helpless. In fact, they are nervous that things could go out of hand.

I am sure the parents of Noor must be as depressed as others because of the Vaishno Devi and Akhnoor victims, particularly because one of the dead was a child. They can do little. But they can at least raise their voice in Pakistan against

such murders. Many will join them.

Fazlur Rahman, the Jamiat Ulama-i-Islam chief, who has made a good impression in India through his conciliatory speeches, should mobilise public opinion against the militants. They are no freedom fighters. They are hired assassins. If peace and dialogue that he advocates is to be established, he has to rein in organizations like Lashkar-i-Taiba. There are also some others who claim to kill in the name of religion.

He is reported to have told Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee that he (Rahman) never used the word, jihadi,

in the context of Kashmir. Indeed, the militants are no jihadis. They have, in fact, given a bad name to the Kashmir movement which at one time was a struggle for self-determination. Very little indigenous input has been left. It is practically foreign now.

It suits the militants to stall the process of peace. Those who put across this thesis are probably right. Still the killings increase the distance, not span it. It seems that the ISI has the last word. And there is no doubt that the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which specializes in playing with the lives of the innocent, operates from Pakistan. The ISI has reportedly asked at least Harkatul Mujahideen, not foreign to the Lashkar, not to keep more than three persons at the camp to make it difficult for the American satellites to differentiate a camp from a village home.

I heard in Pakistan the reason why General Pervez Musharraf was averse to completely stopping cross-border terrorism. His argument was that if he were to do so, New Delhi would not talk to him on Kashmir. This is wrong because India has said many a time that it is willing to hold dialogue on all problems, including Kashmir.

The Simla agreement by which India swears says that “a final settlement on Jammu and Kashmir” is yet to take place. However, Fazlur Rahman’s open support to the agreement is significant. True, it forecloses the option of a third party — he wants America — but the agreement says that the LoC will be “respected” and neither side will try to change it unilaterally. It makes the LoC more or less sacrosanct.

That may still discourage the military set-up in Pakistan not to have normal relations with India. The very role of the military is increasingly questioned by the people. Willy-nilly, it has to feed hostility and militancy to justify its presence in every tier of activity in Pakistan.

I was surprised when Fazlur Rahman told me in Delhi a few days ago that the government at Islamabad wanted peace with India and that the military, being an integral part of the government, favoured it. Rehman must have had some indication on this point in the last three weeks.

He told me then in Islamabad that Track Two was all right but “what about Track One, the fauj (army)?” Whether the army has come round to accept the inevitability of normalization of relations with India or not, the fact is that people in Pakistan have. When we parliamentarians toured that country we found a large pro-peace lobby everywhere. And it is sure to expand.

There is, however, an increasing realization that the politicians and bureaucrats have fed them with lies so as to sustain prejudice and religious hatred. Still the bedrock of goodwill must be strong because the propaganda of 55 years has not penetrated beyond the skin.

The people in Pakistan may have a selfish reason as well. By normalising relations with India, they believe they may be able to lessen the hold of the military on them. On their own, they see no end of the tunnel. They also feel cooped up because Afghanistan has turned back on them, instead of giving them their strategic depth. China is friendly but it is

normalizing relations with India. Who do the Pakistanis turn to?

Probably, the biggest reason to come nearer to India is the Pakistanis’ inveterate hatred towards America. I heard many saying: Hindu ki ghulami America se behatar hai (Slavery of Hindus is far better than America).

The religious parties are panicky that America is getting entrenched in Pakistan. In reply to a question whether Washington had established bases in Pakistan, a top Jamaat-i-Islami leader said that the Americans were working in their offices.

People really believe that Washington, however kind towards General Musharraf, would one day turn against Pakistan. One French journalist, following the route of Daniel Pearl, a US journalist who was killed in Karachi, has made a disclosure: The Pakistani nuclear scientists were actively involved in assembling a bomb which Osama bin Laden wanted to procure.

How far this disclosure will create bad blood between Pakistan and America is a matter of discussion. What is considered a settled fact is that Pakistan must have good relations with India. Fazlur Rahman’s next moves, not rhetoric, will be worth following.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in New Delhi