MOST Americans are rightly bewildered and outraged. The attacks on September 11 were not just acts of terrorism, but crimes against humanity. The whole world including all the Islamic countries expressed deep and sincere sympathy.

There was widespread support for the international campaign against terrorism. The United Nations readily provided the multilateral umbrella for military action in Afghanistan to remove the Taliban regime and destroy the terrorist network that had found a safe haven in that strife-torn and chaotic country.

But now two years down the line, the sympathy has virtually disappeared. The war on terrorism is widely perceived as a war against Islam. As a consequence, the gulf between the US and the Muslim world is widening at a frightening pace. Today, the large majority of people in Islamic countries have unfriendly feelings about the US and many of them consider violence as a legitimate means of achieving political objectives. It is important, as we observe the second anniversary of September 11, to understand the factors which have brought the relationship between the West and 1.3 billion Muslims to its lowest point. Unless this is done, the ultimate objective of eliminating terrorism and extremism from the world would be difficult to achieve.

America has faced many hostile attacks in the past in Lebanon, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, but on September 11, it was attacked for the first time on its own soil. That has changed its psychology. Like a wounded tiger, it has reacted violently and adopted an active strategy to use military force as its main instrument to combat terrorism.

There is enormous intellectual and research capacity in the United States to analyze and understand the deeper causes of extremism in the Islamic world but this capacity has so far had only limited influence on the overall US policy.

Even public opinion in Europe has been reacting negatively to some of the policies being pursued by the US. These include the doctrine of pre-emptive military action and the decision to launch a military attack on Iraq without a UN mandate.

The reaction to the use of military force in Afghanistan in 2001 and the recent occupation of Iraq has been extremely negative in the Islamic world and particularly in the Arab countries. The western media unfortunately has played a major role in widening this gulf, by equating terrorism and extremism with Islam and by portraying militant Islam as the most important threat to western civilization.

That is why despite repeated statements by President Bush and other western leaders that they respect Islam as a religion, the events since September 11, have confirmed at least two of the predictions made by Samuel Huntington that there will be strong expressions of violence from the Muslim world and that will lead to an alliance of the West against the rest. Even the third prediction of an eternal clash between Islam and the western civilization has now been modified into a clash between civilization and barbarism, since terrorists are being increasingly classified as barbarians in the western media. These unfortunate predictions have further compounded some of the chronic hostility that has been simmering in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The most important lesson of these stark realities, emerging from September 11, is that global terrorism cannot be eradicated through the use of force alone. Force may be necessary to forestall terrorist attacks or apprehend them whenever possible, but the use of force will be effective only if it is used as part of a strategy which also deals with the underlying causes of extremism to win minds and hearts.

The second important lesson is to recognize the importance of democratic and moderate Islam in countering extremism. If all Islamic countries are lumped together and condemned as barbarians, as is being done in the western media, the prospects of curbing extremism in the Islamic world would diminish even further. More and more Islamic countries like Pakistan, Indonesia and Turkey are trying to persuade religious political parties to increase their influence through the ballot rather than the bullet. These efforts must be supported and applauded.

Finally, it must be recognized that terrorism and extremism is as much a problem for the stability of the Islamic world as it is for the western world. A joint approach, worked out in consultation with the Islamic countries and institutions can, therefore, provide a more workable approach than the present “us and them” approach implicit in the current strategy. This will enable the US and its partners to take a more holistic view and recognize the deep and chronic causes that have been generating violence and extremism.

In this context, the success of the peace process, initiated by the road map agreed upon by the Palestinians and the Israelis can eliminate one of the most important underlying causes of violence and militancy in the Arab world.

Europe can also become an important bridge between the US and the Islamic world. For Europe, Islam is not out there. It has been a part of Europe for centuries. Europe has also a deeper understanding of Islamic values and cultures. Europe can and should therefore play a more active role, not only in improving relations between the US and the Islamic world but also in promoting durable peace and stability in Afghanistan. Europe can also moderate the adverse impact of the doctrine of unilateral pre-emptive action by strengthening the role of the United Nations. In playing such a role, Europe will not only enhance its geopolitical stature on the global scene but will also accelerate the natural evolution of European values and priorities.

The Islamic countries, on their part, have to denounce violence and terrorism in all its forms and take effective steps to control and eliminate extremism in their own societies and as a medium term strategy embrace knowledge, education and modern technology and demonstrate that Islam is fully compatible with good governance and a tolerant democratic society.

The writer is a former foreign minister of Pakistan

JINNAH is the founding father of Pakistan. But to Pakistanis, he was something more: he is their role model. A role model if only because of the principles he had owned up and practised during his long political career, and, moreover, because of the congruence of his behaviour pattern and politics with his professed principles throughout his public life.

While Jinnah’s own public life and political behaviour provide a role model for the rulers, administrators and politicians, he showed a remarkable perspicacity in identifying the problems that would be encountered in building up Pakistan as he envisaged it — as a welfare state.

The most critical problems confronting Pakistan today are, above all, those of law and order, corruption, nepotism and jobbery, and of greed, ineptitude, hypocrisy, and the insensitivities of those in power, whether in the government at various levels or in the opposition. On these problems Jinnah dwelt repeatedly during his tenure as governor-general, beginning with his August 11, 1947, address to the Constituent Assembly. Now, consider how relevant are the following guidelines he had set out in that memorable address.

i) “The first duty of a government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the state.”

ii) “... everyone... no matter to what community he belongs, ... no matter what his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations... we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state.” (This dictum in the present context should logically be extended to include various sects and ethnic groups).

iii) “... always be guided by the principles of justice and fair play, without any... prejudice or ill-will,... partiality or favouritism.”

iv) “... the evil of nepotism and jobbery ... must be crushed relentlessly ... Never tolerate any kind of jobbery, nepotism or any influence directly or indirectly...

v) “One of the biggest curses... is bribery and corruption. We must put that down with an iron hand...” This includes political bribery and corruption and saleable loyalty as well, which have corroded our entire political system and institutional structures, and have spawned the present political crisis.)

In these precepts the one relating to united nationhood, being “equal citizens of one state”, with equal rights, privileges and obligations is the most important. Therein, he laid down the doctrine of a united, indivisible Pakistani nationhood, without any distinction of language, culture or ethnicity.

During the struggle for Pakistan period, it is true, he had pronounced Hindus and Muslims as two major nations in the subcontinent and, on that basis, demanded a separate homeland for Muslims. But with both the nations having attained statehood, there was a paradigm shift, and the two nations in the post-partition context were and are India and Pakistan. Jinnah was the first statesman to recognize this basic shift. Hence he declared Pakistan, which was and is multi-racial, multi-linguistic and multi-religious, to be a pluralist state, with equal rights, privileges and obligations for all its citizens, whatever their race, religion or creed.

He had invoked the Madinite model of statehood in his reply to Lord Mountbatten on August 14, 1947, and that model was based on the Misaq-i-Madina, which Dr. Hamidullah describes as the first written constitution in the world. The Misaq-i-Madina, promulgated by the Prophet (PBUH), had envisaged a pluralist state (articles 1, 2, 25-35, and 46), bearing in mind the multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious character of Madina, and its defence was made the collective responsibility of all its citizens (articles, 24, 44, 45a, and 45b). Hence Jinnah’s pluralist doctrine for Pakistan is, by no means, in conflict with his declaration of Pakistan being an “Islamic democracy”. And his pluralist doctrine continues to be extremely relevant in the context of the divisive forces and voices that have for long plagued Pakistan.

As for those who, while swearing by democracy, opt for an authoritative style of governance, a phenomenon much too familiar in Pakistan, he warned, “representative governments and representative institutions are no doubt good and desirable, but when people want to reduce them merely to channels of personal aggrandizement, they not only lose their value, but earn a bad name... and it is possible (to avoid that) ... if we subject our actions to perpetual scrutiny and test them with the touchstone not of personal interest but of the good of the state.”

In the task of state-building, the bureaucracy plays a very vital role. It helps build institutions, mans the administrative structure, provides continuity to the system, helps identify, diagnose, and find solutions to problems, addressing itself to the larger task of nation-building. Hence, Jinnah tried to define its role, duties and responsibilities, its do’s and don’ts. His exhortations to the civil servants are still very relevant.

In brief, he told them that their duty is to serve the government “as servants, not as politicians”; and to “act as true servants of the people even at the risk of (annoying) any minister ... trying to interfere with you in the discharge of your duties as civil servants”; that they “should not be influenced by any political pressure, by any political party or individual politician”, but do their duty “as servants to the people and the state”; and that they should “make the people feel” that they are “their servants and friends, (and) maintain the highest standard of honour, integrity, justice and fair play”.

Simultaneously, Jinnah assured the civil servants security of service; he also admonished the politicians (and ministers) to “realize... how it demoralizes the services” when they try to “influence this department or that department, this officer or that officer”. And in doing so, such leaders and politicians “are doing nothing but disservice to Pakistan”.

These pronouncements are in the nature of guidelines, delineating the first steps towards establishing a welfare state. This we have ignored rather callously, to arrive at the sorry state in which Pakistan is today.

Likewise, our political leaders have miserably failed to follow the principles Jinnah had scrupulously followed in his public life. The core principle he had stood for is that of clean, honest and unstained politics. Even when he had established himself at the bar, he refused to enter politics until he had saved “enough”, so that he did not have to live off politics. To him, politics was not meant to secure power and pelf, but to serve the community and the country. He spent his own personal funds to finance his political activities (including travel, boarding and lodging).

Even as governor-general, he set an example in austerity. Ispahani tells us that he cancelled the orders for a Lincoln (car) and for an aircraft because Pakistan could not afford to pay for them. For the same reason, he would not go in for installing a lift in the Governor-General House despite his old age. Also, he would see that the lights were put off before he had himself retired to his bedroom.

Finally, if we would own up and actualize these guidelines, Pakistan, in good time, could become a model welfare state, as envisioned by its founding father.

The writer was the founding director, Quaid-i-Azam Academy.

Adulteration has been described as a silent and insidious killer in Pakistan. When the evil practice is indiscriminate and widespread, its cumulative impact is even more deadly. Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali has described adulteration in food and drugs as nothing less than an act of murder, which deserved the most stringent punishment.

The federal cabinet has come up with a law for punishing adulteration with twentyfive years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of up to rupees one million. The comprehensive law under which the manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, distributors and dealers will be tried in special courts will ensure speedy trial. The licence of the company will be cancelled and the assets of the guilty company will be seized.

The law does not mention drinks specifically but we assume it includes them as too many of them are highly adulterated. The investigation of the case will be done by the FIA and the Police will not file cases under this law so as to prevent any abuse of the law.

The new law does not do away with the old laws. Instead it will be an addition to the laws like the Drug Act of 1976, the Agriculture Pesticide ordinance of 1971 or any other law now in force to combat adulteration. The fact is that if the cases of adulteration had been tried under the existing laws and lesser punishment awarded than proposed now, the evil practice might have subsided a great deal.

Adulteration of fertilizer has not been specifically mentioned in the law but we presume that when the law goes before the National Assembly, the agriculturists in it will demand that adulteration in fertilizers too should be punished severely.

The law has been made very stringent to make up for the past official neglect in this area and to cope with the very widespread evil practice. What kind of changes the National Assembly will make when the law goes before it for enactment remains to be seen. What matters in our peculiar conditions is not how stringent the law is but how effective and sustained the enforcement is.

Usually when stringent Punishment is prescribed for an offence, the rate of bribes to stay off the hook goes up. Let us hope the same would not happen in this case as well. In a country where anyone is free to can any food item, bottle any drink and put it on sale after a glamorous advertising campaign, a great deal of adulteration is bound to take place. In America, for example, all such foods, drinks and drugs are properly tested by the Food and Drug Administration before they are approved.

As a result, the air we breathe is suspect, the drinks are polluted, food adulterated and the medicines too fall victim to such adulteration despite their high prices. Life for the average man becomes too tough and many items we consume are a health hazard.

In view of the fact that the water available in the city is polluted, people began buying bottled water, but recent tests have shown that too many of these drinks are hazardous for the health. Even the protective measures that people adopt at a high cost to themselves have proved to be counter-productive. There are too many health hazards in the country, even when one is not consuming the food in the streets he is exposed to flies and mosquitoes.

In Pakistan at least fifty per cent of the food and drinks we consume are adulterated says Hameed Maker of the Helpline. In addition to local items, we have imported items like Gutka, Stearine, the heavy palm oil regarded as an eventual killer. Edible oil is frequently adulterated when sold loose with injurious admixtures. When it comes to dry items like food grains including rice and pulses they are adulterated with stones to increase their weight.

Tea is adulterated with other crushed leaves. Petroleum products are among the most adulterated ones. In the 1960s when you could get 4 gallons of petrol for rupees 10 and other oils equally cheap, there was very little adulteration but as the price of oil kept shooting, the adulteration increased and reached its peak when petrol reached Rs 160 per gallon.

Inflation is a major promoter of adulteration. The higher the price, the larger the reward for adulteration, and hence its popularity with the petrol pumps. And when the reward for adulteration is high and the punishment for it is very severe, the guilty are ready to offer larger bribes to the authority to stay clear of the law they had offended.

Shortages also promote adulteration, but in recent years following the liberal import policy, not many items are in short supply. But the prices of many items are high, unless they are imported goods like electronics, so the temptation of the traders to adulterate the items on which they trade is very strong. Adulteration of medicine has been a very old problem in Pakistan. Adulteration takes place both when the prices are high or when the medicine is in short supply. The malady is more common in the suburban areas and the countryside.

Alloys and steel products are manufactured by using substandard inputs. The high cost paints are also adulterated, more so when taxes on them are too heavy. The steel tins are often opened up and refilled and then soled. Such items are commonly referred to in the trade as number 2 items.

High taxation also promotes adulteration. The adulterators sell their goods cheap by not paying the taxes. By now adulteration has become too pervasive and so very profitable that the people do not look down on those who thrive by such practices, instead when such men have large and lavish wedding parties or other functions, they attend them happily. Crimes of a quieter kind are seldom looked down upon and hence they thrive.

So, what matters is not the maximum punishment of 25 years for adulteration as has been prescribed now, but how well the law is applied and the guilty punished regardless of how influential they are. The fact is that the problem has aggravated too much and we cannot let it continue as it is. It is imperative now to make a law that forbids people from caning any food item or drink and put it on sale without prior clearance from an official agency. Such protection is essential and so is the need to save the bottled water from pollution by the profiteers.

Corruption and adulteration go together. When corruption is tolerant of other evil practices, it is indulgent towards adulteration as well. And big time adulteration becomes big business, which is able to buy off the assigned officialdom.

MISLED and misread. That pretty well sums up America’s growing disaster in Iraq.

First, President George W Bush, VP Dick Cheney, and a coterie of neo-conservatives led by Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle misled Americans into an unprovoked, unnecessary war by claiming Iraq was about to attack the US with nuclear and biowarfare weapons. This was a grotesque lie that anyone with knowledge of strategic weapons knew was arrant nonsense, but few had the courage or honesty to refute.

Next, the White House gravely misread the strategic situation by swallowing neo-con assurances the ‘liberation’ of Iraq would be a cake-walk and oil bonanza. This week the Iraqis responded to Bush’s foolish challenge, ‘bring’em on,’ by blowing up UN headquarters in Baghdad and inflicting serious sabotage on Iraq’s oil infrastructure.

These attacks showed the US has gotten itself into a truly awesome mess in Iraq. Far from easily plundering Iraq’s oil wealth, US occupation troops in Iraq — almost half US army combat forces — are now under siege, at a cost of US $1 billion weekly.

Bush has literally stuck his head in a hornet’s nest in Iraq and is now getting royally stung. He, his scandalously inept national security advisers, and the media’s so-called ‘Iraqi experts’ failed to comprehend that a US occupation of Iraq would be a frightful, expensive, bloody mess — a disaster that was totally predictable.

Worse, the US occupation of Iraq is clearly creating the kind of violence and car bomb terrorism that Bush used as an excuse to invade Iraq. Call this a terrorism perpetual motion machine. The Iraqis who resist US occupation are branded ‘terrorists’ and lumped into the Bush’s crusade against Islamic militancy.

When the US finds itself unable to crush Iraqi resistance, it will blame neighbouring Iran and Syria for ‘fuelling terrorism,’ and may attack them. Tehran and Damascus thus have every reason to stir the pot in Iraq to tie down US forces and make it less likely the US will next invade them, as neo-cons are urging.

Just a score of Syrian or Iranian-supplied snipers, for example, could inflict punishing losses on the US garrison in Iraq. A few truck bombs causing heavy US casualties might well convince hitherto trusting Americans that Bush’s Iraq adventure is a bloody fiasco. This writer, who covered the 1980’s Afghan struggle against Soviet occupation, sees many of the same elements developing in Iraq: tribal and ethnic divisions, a foreign-supported puppet regime with a useless army, an intractable guerilla war, and a great power with over-reaching imperial ambition.

Worse for the US, Iraq may be emerging, like Afghanistan, as a new, pan-national cause for the Muslim world. Thousands of ‘jihadi’ volunteers are reportedly slipping into Iraq to battle US troops. They range from youthful idealists to battle-hardened ‘jihadis’ from other wars and a handful of suicide bombers. Just as the Afghan jihad electrified the Muslim world and helped assuage its feelings of weakness and inferiority, so for a new generation, Iraq may come to be a passionate struggle against another foreign invader. President Bush has conveniently provided anti-American militants and fanatics across the Mideast with an ideal target: the US army in Iraq.

Ironically, the American neo-conservatives who played a primary role in engineering this war, have stuck the US in much the same morass that their hero and ally, Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, found himself in after he engineered the invasion of Lebanon. Each passing day makes Bush’s ill-fated invasion of Iraq increasingly resemble Lebanon’s ugly civil war.

Sharon, then Israel’s defence minister, ordered his army to invade war-torn Lebanon in 1982 under the pretext of fighting terrorism. In fact, Sharon’s real goal, which he hid from Israel’s prime minister and cabinet, was to crush the PLO, turn Lebanon into an Israeli protectorate, and make himself prime minister.

The result was a calamity for Israel, as Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad, had warned. Like recent CIA warnings over Iraq, Mossad was ignored. At first, Israeli troops were welcomed by many Lebanese, but, they soon ended up in a bloody guerilla war, as I saw first-hand while accompanying Israeli forces in southern Lebanon. Israel’s Lebanese Christian allies, many neo-fascists, turned out to be as inept, conniving, and treacherous as America’s Iraqi yes-men.

Israel was eventually car-bombed and blasted out of Lebanon by Hizbollah guerillas — who, like today’s Iraq resistance forces, were branded ‘terrorists.’ The war cost Israel heavy casualties and billions of dollars. Syria emerged as the real winner, and overlord of Lebanon. Israel suffered its first-ever military defeat. Sharon was convicted of indirect responsibility for the massacre of thousands of Palestinian civilians at Shatilla and Sabra camps.

The US finds itself in a disturbing analog of the long Lebanese civil war, with confused American troops, like Israeli soldiers in Lebanon, not knowing why they are there or who is the enemy and venting their frustration on civilians. Protracted guerilla wars eventually turns even the best-disciplined troops into brutes, and corrupt entire armies.

The very neo-cons who fathered this disaster are now calling for more American troops to be sent to Iraq.—Copyright Eric S. Margolis - 2003.

“THE world has fundamentally changed after 9/11”. This is a message that American leadership and media spin-doctors are conveying all over the world. There is no doubt that the disastrous events of September 11, 2001 have shaken America and its leadership to the roots and influenced the course of events.

It is, however, worthwhile to seriously reflect on what is it that has changed. Two years is long enough time for social scientists, political analysts and all thinking persons to assess whether the change has been for good or for bad.

There is near-consensus that the destruction of Twin Towers in the New York and attack on Pentagon in Washington were dastardly acts of terrorism which led to the death of around 3000 persons. This was condemned universally and if the American leadership had acted wisely, it could have led to the emergence of a moral and ideological movement against terrorism and would have generated serious concern for the causes that led to terrorism anywhere in the world in general and against the US and Israel, in particular.

This historic opportunity was unfortunately squandered. The American leadership chose to adopt a chauvinistic approach emanating from ‘wounded ego’, conceited arrogance, blind self-righteousness, and power-intoxication. The outcome was predictable: desperate attempts towards indiscriminate use of power aiming at establishing US military and political hegemony in pursuit of the trodden imperialistic path of “pax-Americana” abroad, and drift towards a virtual police state within. This was a tragedy many times greater than the tragic events of 9/11.

On the positive side at least three major reactions to 9/11 deserve to be noted.

First and foremost is the futility of use of terrorism as an instrument of political agenda. Although terrorism lacks clear definition on which some kind of the consensus could be claimed, all justice-loving people disapprove of the use of indiscriminate violence against innocent civilians even if it is directed towards promoting certain political objectives, otherwise justifiable. But this is true of state terrorism as much as group terrorism.

Secondly, the debate that has taken place all over the world, including America and Britain, both about the dynamics of terrorism and the American-British so-called “war on terrorism” which in the opinion of a large number of social scientists and political analysts, has actually become another form of state terrorism and international gangsterism, is a positive development. It should be acknowledged that whatever be the self-evaluation of the American leadership, the ‘war on terrorism’ has become counter-productive.

It goes to the credit of the US and Europe that they remain free societies where state and individual actions are being openly discussed and merits and demerits of different strategies debated. The way President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair have handled the whole affair, has been openly questioned and their popularity in their respective countries as well as globally has dived downwards during the last two years, particularly after the invasion of Iraq.

Thirdly, the most important aspect of the post-9/11 scenario is the emergence of grassroot rebellion against the political establishments. People all over the world have expressed moral abhorrence against naked abuse of power and outrageous manipulation of the media. Protests that have taken place all over the world against war, and against US unilateralism and brinkmanship, have qualitatively influenced the grammar of world politics. This global grassroot movement of the post-9/11 era represents the next phase for the ascendance of democratic values at the global level.

These three positive developments deserve to be noted and pursued as they can become milestones in humanity’s efforts to establish a just world order.

The negative side, however, is gruesome and challenging. American leadership has tried to blatantly use this occasion to concentrate power in its own hands, to whip up a kind of hyper-patriotism in the American people so as to blind them to its own failures, misdeeds and duplicities, and harness their ‘forced consent’ to unleash imperialistic pursuits in different parts of the world to establish American hegemony over the world.

The Republican Party and its leadership are very much under the influence and manipulation of the forces known as neo-conservatives in American politics and religion. The evangelists, the Zionists and the extremists of the right have joined hands to promote what can only be described as the worst form of religio-political fundamentalism in American history.

The principles on which the American Constitution is based are being flouted with impunity. Privacy is no longer an American virtue. The sanctity of private life is being violated and a kind of neo-McCarthyism is surreptitiously overtaking American society. Liberty, personal rights and values of human equality are the first victims of this approach. Over 2000 people were arrested in America and most of them are still detained without trial and the right of recourse to due process of law.

This has devastating psychic affects on the population with the result that the index of high uncertainty syndrome has shot up in all parts of America, particularly so in New York. Whatever goodwill America had won over the last 200 years as champion of human rights, democracy and international law, has been tarnished beyond repair. Whatever be the American claims of being ‘liberators’ in Afghanistan or Iraq, the fact is that the people of these countries, as also an overwhelming majority of the people all over the world, look differently. Even the UN has described the US and its so-called coalition partners as ‘occupying powers’. Unfortunately, American leadership seems to have no perception of what it has lost and how little it has gained, if any.

Secondly, international law is being re-written under duress. Whatever was achieved in the form of UN and its charter is in tatters. The universally accepted principles of justice and due process of law, the concept that no one is guilty till proved so judiciously, the belief that every individual has a right to defend oneself, seek legal advice without interference or surveillance and have fair trial — all these are becoming things of the past.

Thirdly, whether one likes it or not, there is a perception all over the world, shared even by the people of a number of European countries, that 9/11 has been used as an excuse to impose American hegemony over the world, to have access to and control over the energy resources of mankind, particularly in the Middle East and the Central Asia, and to terrorize and bulldoze weaker governments all over the world to toe the American line.

Fourthly, it is all the more intriguing that while humanity, including American people, are paying a heavy price for what happened on 9/11, the death toll of people subjected to new American aggressions in Afghanistan and Iraq has become more than ten times the loss of innocent people in New York, Washington and Pittsburgh on that black September.

The American leadership, it is conspicuous, has not taken any serious steps to find out in a manner that is judicious, objective and credible what caused the disaster of 9/11?, who were responsible for it?, who collaborated in that heinous act?, and above all, whose negligence, connivance or collaboration led to that hellish outrage? Even small incidents are thoroughly inquired into under public search light; not so the disaster of 9/11. A country, which is spending over US $ 70 billion a year on over a dozen intelligence agencies, has failed to institute an independent inquiry to find out what really happened and why?

Some very important and eye opening investigative studies by independent journalists have been published from France, UK and America, pointing figures not only towards serious lapses, but much more deliberate cover-up and misinformations.

Finally, the most disturbing feature of the post-9/11 scenario relates to the attitude towards Islam and the Muslims. Some of the powerful forces that fashion policies of the superpower and the media that controls and manipulates peoples’ thoughts are engaged in a vicious campaign against one religion and its adherents. Islam and the Muslim countries are being singled out as the source and abode of all terrorism. Muslims in America and abroad are at the suffering end. The fair name of Islam is being maligned in a systematic manner. The fact that every country, every culture and every people belonging to every faith have their problems, including extremist fringes is ignored. Terrorism has no religion or ethnicity.

Terrorism let loose in our own times by different groups and states, including Americans, Greeks, Germans, Italians, Indians and others are simply connived. How Israel was established as a result of naked terrorism, destruction of thousands of houses, killing of hundreds of thousands people and forced migration of over a million Arabs by half a dozen Zionist organizations over a period of almost 70 years, is just not mentioned. State terrorism in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, Philippines, Indonesia is nobody’s concern.

Looking to the balance sheet, one is constrained to say that so far the world has not learnt the true lesson of the tragedy of 9/11. No doubt it was a traumatic experience for the leadership of the United States. But the type of introspection, self-searching and self-criticism this should have initiated is nowhere in view. A country that has greatest power, opportunity and resources for self-reflection seems to be ignoring that altogether.

The writer is a senator and chairman of the Institute of Policy Studies, Islamabad.