| September 7, 2003 | Sunday | Rajab 9, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Resolution rifts
CHINA is among countries that have come forward to offer help to Pakistan to fight terrorism. A joint working group has been formed by the two countries to deal with problems relating to border security and smuggling, and a memorandum of understanding has also been signed. France, Germany and Britain too have offered substantial financial and technical aid to Pakistan for the same purpose. The United States since 9/11 has, of course, been keen to provide assistance to Pakistan in the campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, giving helicopters and other equipment to enable greater vigilance on the borders and the coast. US operatives are also reported to have functioned along side Pakistani security officials in the search for wanted men. Foreign help and interest should obviously be welcome in terms of both modern equipment and expertise. Institutional inertia and deep-rooted corruption in the country’s police and investigating agencies have seriously impaired their efficiency. Their dismal failure in detecting ordinary crime is evident all over the country. Sectarian and political terrorism is an even more complex phenomenon; it is also a recent one. It has caught our regular policing organizations totally unprepared to deal with it, and left them quite bewildered.
But this is one aspect: foreign interest has another cutting edge to it. It reflects a belief that Pakistan continues to be a hotbed of terrorism. This is a perception not confined simply to those in the west who identify religious revivalism with terrorism. Even countries committed to Pakistan’s well-being and accommodating of its many quirks like China have been worried about the infiltration of militant elements into Xingjiang and other border regions. The US war on Afghanistan to eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda groups hiding in that country was depicted as a major step in combating terrorism. In fact, it has made the situation worse by adding a new army of motivated and angry fighters to the depleting ranks of those who were left over from the anti-Soviet crusade in the ’80s. There has been a recrudescence of militancy in the region, an indication of which is provided by the daily battles between US forces and Taliban men in Afghanistan and this week’s military exercises by Pakistan in the tribal belt (officially described as routine manoeurvres).
Islamabad has executed a U-turn in its Afghan policy, but many countries do not think that this has put paid to the murky links between some of our intelligence agencies and a variety of militant groups, some of which are involved in the Kashmir freedom struggle. These links go back to Ziaul Haq’s forward policy in Afghanistan and our later backing of the Taliban regime. To put it simply, the belief seems to be that we have not shaken ourselves totally free of our “jihadism” and that our effort to crack down on terrorists does not go deep enough. Reports that some army men were being investigated for alleged militant connections could only have deepened worries on this account. Domestic compulsions — the electoral strength gained by the religious parties, for instance, and the government’s insistence on dealing with these parties rather than with the two main parties — add to the problems of controlling militancy. Much has been said about reforming medressahs that spawn “jihadi” tendencies, but details of what actual steps have been taken in this direction are lacking. There is reason to believe that some banned militant outfits have also resumed functioning under different names. Beyond accepting foreign anti-terrorism technical and financial help, therefore, we need to convince everyone, including ourselves, that we are prepared to fully isolate elements and groups that jeopardize the country’s stability and security.
THIS is going to be a very busy Sunday at the United Nations in New York, as delegates confer among themselves on the contents of the new US-sponsored draft resolution seeking a multinational force to work under a unified American command in Iraq. France and Germany were the first to let their reservations known even before the resolution was formally circulated among the Security Council members. Russia also soon added its voice to the French and German demands. The three countries are now seeking a substantial enhancement of the UN’s authority in post-war Iraq. Sticking to their principled moral stand, they also want a more potent role for the Iraqi people in the decision-making process about their country’s future. Besides, one of the motivations is to claim a share of the economic benefits that will accrue from the reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq is an immensely oil-rich country and in desperate need of rebuilding its all but completely destroyed infrastructure. There is big money to be made here; the rest of the big powers are not going to sit back and watch US and British firms net all the contracts.
The US has shown a willingness to accommodate dissent on the contents of the draft resolution and to reach a consensus on the issue. The mounting public and opposition pressure on the Bush administration to bring back as many American servicemen home as possible and as soon as possible cannot be overstated. Given these American compulsions, most governments that can will bargain with Washington on a meaningful share in Iraq’s political and economic affairs before they commit their troops to a multinational force.
That said, the draft resolution itself leaves much to be desired. Even a cursory look at the contents reveals that the US wants greater international and UN involvement in shouldering the responsibilities of occupation, but wishes to keep the decision-making on the political and economic reconstruction of Iraq in its own hands. The draft resolution also seeks legitimizing the US-led interim administration of Paul Bremer, its nominated Iraqi governing council and the interim cabinet. Clauses 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15 explicitly seek “loans”, “substantial financial contributions” and “resources necessary for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Iraq’s economic infrastructure” from UN member states. Implicit in these clauses is the suggestion that the disbursement of these funds will be entrusted to the American-led interim administration.
The draft resolution in its current form reads like America’s wish list. It offers the US not only an honourable exit strategy from the killing fields of Iraq, with the danger of a prolonged guerrilla warfare and a near-total breakdown of law and order, but also complete control on Iraq’s resources and of those pooled by the international community. Obviously, the French, the Germans and the Russians have seen right through this self-serving strategy. Given the emphasis on raising international funds for the reconstruction of Iraq, the French foreign minister has now gone public demanding “transparency in the management of (Iraq’s) resources, notably its petroleum sector.” And that is no small demand to make. Unless the US and Britain are willing to provide for an effective monitoring role for the UN in a form acceptable to the international community, pending the formation of an elected Iraqi government, any new resolution on Iraq will have a slim chance of approval by the Security Council.