| December 9, 2003 | Tuesday | Shawwal 14, 1424 |
Israel’s shadow
ISLAMABAD: The following is the edited text of the Dawn Dialogue interview with Saarc Secretary-General Qamar Ahmed Rahim:
QUESTION: What issues are likely to dominate the 12th Saarc Summit in Islamabad?
ANSWER:Essentially economic and social issues .... We will try to initiate programmes that will contribute to Saarc’s overarching goal of poverty alleviation. In this context it will be a very important summit because at the 11th summit in Kathmandu, the leadership asked me to prepare a South Asian regional poverty profile and had also decided to reconstitute the independent South Asian Commission on Poverty Alleviation.
The poverty alleviation profile is ready and the commission has prepared its report which will be submitted to the summit. The leaders will have a chance to see the profile which indicates where we stand in South Asia vis-a-vis poverty, and then look at the commission’s recommendation as to what can be done about it. We are expecting that the Saarc leaders will then take some important decisions about the approach to poverty alleviation in South Asia. The council of ministers in anticipation of this has already directed that some regional poverty alleviation projects be prepared, and we are also in the process of appointing people to undertake a study on some regional poverty alleviation projects having elements like literacy, primary healthcare, rural renewable energy, micro-credit, etc.
If we can adopt one of these projects, then probably this will be the first-ever project in Saarc history which will really be implemented regionally. So far in Saarc all projects although agreed regionally were implemented nationally. So we are expecting that in the area of poverty alleviation there will be decisions having a positive impact on the future activities of Saarc.
Then, cooperation in economic areas remains very high on the agenda and here too we are expecting significant movement. During the last summit, the leaders had given expression to their vision of South Asia as an economic union and decided that it would be done in a phased manner, moving from preferential trade to free trade and then to a South Asian customs union that would ultimately lead to the final stage of the South Asian economic union. We are now almost poised to transit from a preferential trade to a free trade area.
The third area where we hope to see significant progress is the social sector. We already have ongoing programmes but there is a feeling now that we should set a South Asian standard for the social sector. The last Saarc summit had directed that a social charter be prepared. We are now almost in the final stages of drafting a social charter and we are hoping that heads of state and government will be able to sign this charter at the 12th summit.
Q: If you had a wish list, what are the three specific things that you would want from the summit?
A: In the economic sector, I would like a clear directive on movement from preferential trading to free trading; in the social area I would like the social charter to be signed so that the commitment is there at the highest political level; and on the poverty alleviation front, I would like Saarc leaders to give us a clear direction for our future programme. The finance and planning ministers met in Islamabad last year and they had recommended adoption of a plan of action for poverty alleviation and if that is approved by the leaders, then we will have a roadmap.
Q: President Pervez Musharraf said the other day that Saarc should not be held hostage to the whims of one country and emphasized the need for maintaining a regular calendar for the summit. What are your views on this?
A: Who will disagree with him?
Q: How do you see the recent peace initiatives taken by Pakistan to normalize relations with India?
A: We all welcome this positive development. The Saarc charter excludes bilateral issues from the purview, but in spite of that it is a fact of life that bilateral relations have affected Saarc. So anybody associated with Saarc will be happy to see movement in those bilateral issues which have affected the Saarc process. Therefore we welcome any positive development in bilateral relations between any members of Saarc that eliminates the possibility of friction and makes decision-making easier.
Q: There is a perception that Saarc has failed to emerge as an effective regional organization and has a bleak future. What are your views on this?
A: Whether Saarc is an effective forum or not or whether it was or not, will all depend on how you look at it. If by saying that Saarc is not an effective forum because it has not been able to solve bilateral political and security problems, then Saarc will never be an effective organization because these issues are excluded from the Saarc charter. The problem is that the very idea of what constitutes an effective forum somehow does not fit into the scheme of things that people have in mind. Otherwise, what Saarc intended to do and the objectives its founding fathers set, I think Saarc is steadily moving in that direction.
Positive things are happening, but the problem is that people want a solution of the Kashmir issue. Everyone wants to know about Kashmir. Saarc has nothing to do with Kashmir, so please don’t ask about Kashmir.
Q: President Musharraf proposed earlier this year at a seminar that the Saarc charter should be modified to address bilateral disputes which are hampering the progress of Saarc as an effective regional forum. Do you subscribe to this view?
A: If the leaders want to, they can do it, but the leaders did not want it so they did not include it in the charter.... If the evaluation at that time was that Saarc would succeed with all these bilateral problems, why should the evaluation be different today? One should not say that since there are bilateral difficulties, multilateral elements will not succeed. There are plenty of examples in the world that multilateral elements have succeeded in spite of bilateral problems, and that was also the assessment of the Saarc leaders in 1985.
The founding fathers of Saarc also anticipated that if we have political and bilateral issues, then these will cast an undesirable shadow on regional cooperation. That is why they excluded that. However, unfortunately, that is what is happening despite a conscious decision to put those aside. Now if we bring them in, then I think you will rather legitimize the influence of those things.
Q: But then what is the way out of this?
A: My view is that a charter is something to which everybody is committed and that commitment should be kept. Multilateralism and regionalism is the trend of the day. If we miss this opportunity and do not form our own economic regional grouping, then may be we will be marginalized.
Q: Do you agree with the view that a major weakness of Saarc is that all its decisions have to be consensus decisions?
A: That is the most commonly cited weakness of Saarc but I consider that to be a strong point. If all seven members agree, we can do anything. There is no limitation put by the charter.
Q: Why was the Saarc-Japan special fund suspended by the Japanese government last year?
A: I do not know the real reason, only the Japanese will be able to tell you that. Actually, the suspension came in their financial year 2002-2003. Saarc itself was going through its slow-down period and as a result the fund Japan had contributed during those three years could not be spent and there was an accumulation of funds. So Japan has cited that as the reason for not contributing anymore. That was probably a valid reason in year 2001 but was no more a valid reason in 2002 as after the revival of the Saarc process, following the 11th summit, all the accumulated funds were spent. In fact now we have approved a programme for which we do not have money, and I am looking for alternative resources from member countries to implement it.
Q: What was the size of this fund?
A: When it was originally agreed, the indication was that it would be to the tune of $500,000 annually, 60 per cent of which would be spent by the Japanese and 40 per cent by the Saarc secretariat. So in effect it was about $200,000 that we used to get annually. The Japanese spent 60 per cent of the fund themselves on the projects they identified.
Q: As the Saarc secretary-general what has been the high-point and low point for you?
A: The high point was that I came into office when there was a revival of the Saarc process. I took charge soon after the 11th summit, which took place after a lapse of three years and that had created a momentum to which I had also been able to contribute. I would also consider quite a few initiatives that I have taken in a number of areas as a very high point. I have proposed certain actions for promoting what I call the South Asian identity. Then the low point came when the 12th summit was postponed and the momentum was lost.
Q: Can you elaborate on the actions you have proposed to promote a South Asian identity?
A: My idea is that in everyday life we see examples of multiple identities. I am a Bangladeshi and I’m proud of that, but at the same time I could be a South Asian too. One is not to the exclusion of the other. So in South Asia we need to develop a sense of belonging to the region so we can take pride in being a member of the bigger regional identity. Although Saarc member countries claim they have so much in common, they never identify themselves as South Asians. We always emphasize the divisions, not the unity. So I have proposed to the council of ministers that we should take certain conscious steps to promote this sense of belonging to the region, that instead of underling the divisive aspects, we should emphasize the commonness.
As a first step,I have proposed that we should encourage movement of people in the region, reduce visa fees, make obtaining visas easier, open immigration counters dedicated to South Asian nationals at international airports, reduce entrance fees to tourist sites for South Asians. I have also suggested that we encourage our expatriate nationals all over the world where there are sizable South Asian communities to jointly observe a Saarc charter day which falls on December 8 and have joint cultural functions.
Q: Have the Saarc countries been receptive to these proposals?
A: Yes, some of these proposals are being considered and some have already been accepted in principle. Probably some decisions on these will be taken at the Islamabad summit.
Mr. Rahim was interviewed by Qudssia Akhlaque
WHEN a witness deposes in a court of law, he or she is required to take an oath that he or she will speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Not to do so constitutes perjury, which can be punished by a jail term.
Truth is exalted in the justice system but to be on the safe side, it is enforced by the threat of punishment. Governments and its leaders get more leeway and to be economic with the truth which is called disinformation and more generally, propaganda. There are no penalties attached to straying from the straight and narrow path. National interests cover a multitude of sins including taking one’s country to war on the basis of fudged or concocted evidence. I saw BBC’s programme Panorama, which was an investigation of Saddam Hussain’s weapons of mass destruction. We saw clips of George Bush, Tony Blair, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice testifying with aggressive certainty (nothing but the truth?) that not only did weapons of mass destruction exist but they posed a clear and present danger. George Bush went even further. He raised the spectre of a nuclear attack and “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
These words were repeated by Condoleezza Rice, suggesting, perhaps, that she might have had an input in George Bush’s speech. The imagery of a mushroom cloud was just as vivid as the 45-minute warning that Tony Blair had given in making out a case for war against Iraq. This was strong stuff and swung those who may had had doubts, to support the war.
Panorama concentrated on the Iraq Survey Group headed by Dr David Kay, handpicked by George Bush, to go to Iraq and find the weapons of mass destruction. It cannot be said that he went to Iraq with an open mind. He was among those who shared the certainty. The weapons existed and all he had to do was to find them or find such Iraqis who were sufficiently disaffected and would spill the beans.
Dr Kay came out empty though he did find evidence of sorts of a missile that exceeded its range and which constituted a clear violation of UN Resolution 1441. This was the equivalent of someone looking for evidence of a homicide and coming up with a traffic offence, like parking in a no-parking zone. His final report will be submitted in January 2004. Who knows he may come up with something. As he said, Iraq is a big country.
There has been a lot of comment about flawed intelligence but none about faith-based intelligence. The CIA and to some extent M16 have come in for some flak. But there has been no mention or very little mention of a third player and that is Mossad, Israel’s wonder spy agency. Now Laura King of the Los Angeles Times has blown the whistle. She writes: “A former senior Israeli military intelligence asserted that the nation’s (Israel) spy agencies were a full partner to the United States and Britain in producing flawed pre-war assessments of Iraq’s ability to mount attacks with weapons of mass destruction.”
There is what the writer calls “ a sharply worded report” by the Shlomo Brom, a brigadier general in the army reserves. In the report the brigadier general says: “ In the questioning of the picture painted by coalition intelligence, the third party in this intelligence failure — Israel — has remained in the shadows. And yet Israeli intelligence was a full partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.”
Brom says that the Israeli intelligence agencies “badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons existed.” Although Brom attributes the failure to professional lapses and misreading of important data, he singles out “a one-dimensional perception” of Saddam Hussain and mentions “a culture of excessive intelligence anxiety.”
It should have been obvious that Israel had a vested interest in inflating the Iraqi threat. Motivated intelligence starts with a conclusion or a pre-meditated effect and then goes in search of evidence that confirms the belief. Anything that leads in a different direction is overlooked. This produces not just flawed intelligence but dangerous consequences. Did Tony Blair know that the intelligence he was getting may have been tailor-made for him to support his case for a war? He still believes that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, though most of the men and women of his country do not.
Worse than the weapons of mass destruction that have just vanished in thin air, was the certainty that the peace would easily be won and the coalition armies would be received with open arms. On what intelligence was this pipe-dream based? No doubt from the Iraqi exiles who too had a vested interest in toppling Saddam Hussain.
Even a cub reporter knows that he should double-check his facts before filing a story, what to say of a head of government. Even the humble vegetable-seller will have some kind of a feasible study in his mind when he marks out the territory where he proposes to sell his vegetables. Was Ahmed Chalabi a good enough or a reliable enough source to determine what the Iraqi reaction would be to an invasion?
Clearly, no homework had been done. The information obtained from Iraqi exiles should have been verified by independent sources. There was about the reasons for going to war a large dollop of wishful thinking. John F. Kennedy too had put too much stock in the input of Cuban exiles and it landed him in the Bay of Pigs.
In the meanwhile, the forgotten war in Afghanistan seems to be hotting up again. Again, relying on intelligence, the Americans bombed a house in Ghazni, hoping to eliminate a militant who was reported to be in the house. It is not known whether the militant was eliminated. But what is known is that nine children were killed.
Intelligence sources did not know that children were present in the house. This is an error that will do nothing to further the cause of winning the hearts and minds of the people. But then, as they say, war is hell but there is one kind of hell for the good guys and a different kind of hell for the bad guys.