| 07 January 2004 | Wednesday | 14 Ziqa'ad 1424 |
Israel: revolt within
Avoiding trite judgments
On the first day of 2004, The New York Times published Colin Powell's recap of the year just past and his prognostications for the 12 months ahead. It's an interesting discourse, not because the US secretary of state is a particularly engaging writer, but because it appears his foreign policy strategy has emerged triumphant after a shaky period that saw diplomacy shoved aside in favour of aggressive militarism.
The war against Iraq was supposed to serve as a warning to any regime that dared to disobey Washington's commandments. Whether or not it has served that purpose to any appreciable extent, it appears to have served as a warning - not a moment too soon - to the American administration. Pre-emption and regime change are no longer de rigueur. In fact, they no longer figure at all in dispatches from Washington, DC. Diplomacy is the order of the day, even for bona fide members of the "axis of evil".
Iran has turned down the offer of an American "humanitarian" delegation in the wake of the Bam disaster, although it has accepted assistance from the erstwhile "great satan". North Korea, on the other hand, is willing to roll out the red carpet for American officials and legislators keen to inspect its nuclear facilities. Saddam Hussein extended a similar invitation on more than one occasion, but was peremptorily rebuffed.
This significant and, for what it's worth, welcome policy change has been accompanied by protestations that no shift has occurred. Because facing up to it would involve acknowledging, at least implicitly, that the previous policy was wrong or untenable.
To millions of people around the world, that was patently obvious well before the invasion, and the disastrous aftermath has swelled the ranks of the sceptics, not least in the US itself. Hence the apparent realization among George W. Bush's image-makers that offering him to the electorate this year as a relentless warmonger could backfire.
So, pre-emption and regime change, although perhaps not off the agenda, have certainly been relegated to a secondary slot, behind diplomacy - a practice that took quite a battering from the likes of Donald Rumsfeld in the run-up to last year's war. Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, too, are likely to be less than thrilled with the turn of events.
But Powell - despite, or perhaps because of, his military background - was never entirely comfortable with his colleagues' cavalier attitude towards diplomacy. Unable, or perhaps unwilling, to prevent the war, he was considerably keener than other members of the administration to receive the UN's imprimatur. He was willing to lie for the purpose, and he did so 11 months ago with just a faint hint of embarrassment in front of a largely sceptical Security Council. He may, at least for the moment, have emerged as a winner in the US foreign policy stakes, but this appears not to have affected his predilection for falsehoods.
"Americans," he claims in the NYT, "are safer as 2004 begins than they were a year ago." That obviously explains the multiple flight cancellations of recent weeks. It is unlikely that any of the Americans thrust into Iraq feel that way. A lance corporal who served in Iraq last year wrote to best-selling author Michael Moore: "You'd be surprised at how many of the guys I talked to in my company and others believed that the president's scare about Saddam's WMD was a bunch of bullshit and that the real motivation for this war was only about money."
And an army private writing from Iraq had this to say: "I would like to tell you how difficult it is to serve under a man who was never elected .... He continually sets my friends, my family, and several others in a kind of danger that frightens me beyond belief. I know several other soldiers who feel the same way and discuss the situation with me on a regular basis."
This is not to suggest that a military revolt is brewing, but the willingness of serving troops to voice their doubts does indicate a growing level of disenchantment. As a 19th-century Republican president pointed out, "You cannot fool all of the people all the time."
"Afghanistan," says Powell, "is no longer a devil's playground for terrorists, nor is Iraq an incubator for weapons of mass murder that could have fallen into terrorists' hands." Incubator? That's not a word Powell used in his Security Council presentation. And when another prominent prevaricator, Tony Blair, recently claimed that laboratories linked to WMD had been discovered in occupied Iraq, the notion was dismissed as a red herring by none other than the occupier-in-chief, Paul Bremer. So much for incubation.
As for Afghanistan, more than two years after the Taliban were chased out of Kabul and replaced with more reliable petty despots, US troops continue to combat what are purported to be bands of resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters.
Powell says America's formidable power will continue to be deployed in the year ahead to "expand freedom", with a particular focus on Iraq and Afghanistan, but "we are resolved as well to turn the president's goal of a free and democratic Middle East into a reality". He adds: "We will also stand by the Iranian people, and others living under oppressive regimes." Surely it would be unfair not to count Americans among those suffering oppressive regimes. It seems they will have to fend for themselves.
A seemingly gratuitous reference to Cuba in Powell's text suggests that US efforts to subvert the government of that fiercely independent Caribbean island could gather momentum in the months ahead. Even if regime change has been set aside as a policy goal in every other context, most members of the Bush administration will be glad to make an exception in the case of Fidel Castro - particularly in an election year.
The US secretary of state does not mention Pakistan at all. Which arguably provides cause for gratitude. Powell's boss, however, has been less reticent on the subject. Last week he assured us that Pakistan's nuclear weapons are secure, and that much the same goes for Pakistan's president. "He's been a stand-up guy when it comes to dealing with terrorists," Bush said of Pervez Musharraf. That's presumably a compliment, although the expression commonly refers to comedians.
The general does not fall in that category, but he does occasionally pull quite remarkable stunts. First there was the possibly unique cockpit coup, whereby he overthrew a bad and unpopular but nonetheless legitimate government. Once ensconced in power - as the chief executive, mind you, not the chief martial law administrator - he appears to have lost his knack for originality.
The referendum was a replay of the one organized by his less than illustrious predecessor, Mohammed Ziaul Haq. And the 17th Amendment shares not only the Eighth Amendment's disrespect for the national Constitution but also some of the wording. In substituting Article 270-A, Zia's amendment indemnified all of his regime's actions since July 5, 1977, declaring that "notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution", they "shall not be called into question in any court whatsoever".
Musharraf's 17th Amendment goes even further, declaring that all his moves and executive decisions since October 1999, "notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, shall not be called in question in any court or forum on any ground whatsoever". What exactly does "forum" mean in this context? Has the general managed to insulate himself against not just a legal challenge but also all forms of public criticism?
The vote of confidence was another stunt, and the fact that a clause was introduced into the Constitution in order to facilitate a one-off act of convenience demonstrates the contempt in which the nation's basic document is held by military officers and politicians alike. Many aspects of the 17th amendment make mockery of Qazi Hussain Ahmed's mealy-mouthed claim that the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal played a compromising role in order to make the point that no individual has the right to alter the constitution.
That the post-Zia period of democracy left much to be desired is demonstrated in part by how long it took to amend the Eighth Amendment. The 17th could be with us long after Musharraf. The only acceptable alternative to a bad democracy ought to be a better democracy. Interludes of military rule tend only to queer the pitch.
It remains to be seen whether Musharraf keeps his promise to the MMA by relinquishing his military post by the end of the year. Let's not forget that he also promised us "true" democracy, which remains as elusive as ever. And dictatorship by any other name smells just as foul, particularly when it is the product of a mullah-military alliance.
Despite a host of reservations, one must wish Musharraf well in his tussle with terrorism. And in his efforts to ameliorate relations with India, which will succeed only if they are based, on both sides, on a genuine desire to liberate ourselves from the clutches of the past, rather than on external pressure.
Above all, the general must not forget that, notwithstanding his dictatorial status, history will be kinder to him if he can be seen as a "stand-up guy" for Pakistan's interests rather than those of the US.
e-mail: mahirali2@netscape.net
Israel: revolt within
The Guardian, London, headlined its lead story on Oct 31, as 'Army chief warns Sharon: We are on the verge of catastrophe'. The story exposed the existence of a fierce 'rift' between the military and the government. In an unusually blunt statement uncharacteristic of a disciplined outfit like the Israeli Defence Force (IDF), Army chief Lieutenant-General Moshe Ya'alon, while opposing the building of the so-called 'security fence' on the West Bank, warned the Sharon government that it would push the country to the 'verge of a catastrophe.'
Recent reports circulated by AFP and Reuters confirm the rising tide of unrest in the rank and file of the IDF. Some of its officers and reservists face the certain prospect of a general court martial and summary dismissal for refusing in writing to take part in 'missions' in the Palestinian territories in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
Branded as 'refuseniks' their protest has assumed the size of a movement called 'Courage to Refuse'. They published a refusal letter on December 22, in defiance of their order for active duty in Palestinian territories.
The raging turmoil in the IDF underscores the indifference and obstinate refusal of Sharon's government to see the dangers pointed out by General Ya'alon. The army chief's statement was nothing short of no-confidence vote against the Sharon government.
According to the Guardian, the statement reinforced a growing perception among the public that Sharon was unable to deliver the peace with security he promised when he came to office nearly three years ago. General Ya'alon was especially critical of the 'route' of the security fence running through the West Bank. The fence, as planned and being raised by Sharon, 'digs deep' into Palestinian territory, 'caging' some towns and villages and 'cutting' Palestinian farmers off from their land to make their lives 'unbearable'.
Militarily, it would require too many soldiers to guard it, a task not within human resource of the army to undertake. Already committed heavily in a combat role against the Palestinian intifada the army can undertake additional duties in aid of the civil power only at the cost of much of its morale, training and professional orientation.
'Anonymous sources' in the prime minister's office were quoted in the Israeli press to the effect that the army chief was 'trying to blame the politicians for the military's failures. However, Foreign Minister, Silvan Shalom and Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olment are reportedly to be supportive of the army chief's assessment and critique.
The situation has taken such an ugly turn as to cause concern even to General Ya'alon against his own better judgement. He had, as army chief, to take personal notice of the 'Courage to Refuse' movement launched by the so-called 'Refuseniks', in effect mutineers. He said he would go into it, case-by-case, and either drop charges against the malcontents or dismiss them summarily from service.
The 'Refuseniks' view the occupation of the Palestinian territories as a 'threat' to the army as well as to the state. A statement faxed to AFP last week said: 'When the finest of our boys refuse to serve and are willing to risk severe sanctions in order to voice their cry of distress. It's high time our leaders understood that the occupation must come to an end.'
Sharon's latest plan to 'disengage' from the peace process purports to draw a 'new security border'. This would be not just by nibbling along the occupied territories but trying to freeze those on the post 1967 lines.
As for the Syrian Golan Heights occupied in 1967 and annexed in 1971, Sharon demands a re-opening of the issue from point zero. He refuses to look back at the stance adopted by his predecessor, Ehud Barak, envisaging a 'retreat' from nearly all of the Golan.
The revolt gripping the Israeli army rank and file and the criticism of his Palestine policies by the army chief confront Sharon with a deep internal crisis without precedence in Israel's history.
The writer is a retired brigadier of the Pakistan Army.
Avoiding trite judgments
Rich tributes were paid to the noted poet Shaikh Ayaz on his sixth death anniversary observed in Karachi on Dec 21 last year. One writer thought that Ayaz's poetry should be assessed in comparison with other great poets, for example, Faiz, Iqbal and Ghalib. The suggestion was well received as a comprehensive study of Ayaz's work has not yet been attempted. His poetry had a wide appeal that was not confined to Sindhi.
Another speaker drew a parallel between Shaikh Ayaz and Faiz in a different way. He said both poets were 'sufis' at heart. In the last years of his life, Ayaz devoted himself to writing about nature and other-worldly themes. The socialist theories and revolutionary ideas that had formed the great passion of his youth died during his last days. Ayaz actually came to repudiate those early views and indeed ridiculed the very concept of revolution.
Faiz, the speaker asserted, had similarly turned towards religion during his last days. In his support, the speaker quoted a newspaper columnist who had described the last few days of Faiz's life, reportedly spent as a religious person. It was pointed out that Faiz had visited his parental village, Kala Qadir, met the comrades of his school days, and the village elders, paid his respects to the maulvi of the local mosque, where he had learnt the Holy Quran. He had also contributed funds for the renovation of the mosque and the village graveyard, etc.
But do these things indicate a turning away from Faiz's political philosophy or establish a sudden interest in religion on the poet's part? Faiz was by nature a mild, soft-spoken and an affectionate person. As a humanist, he had never lost his love for the poor and the oppressed and for an equitable social order, where the working people were given the fruits of their labour. He was never a red-hot revolutionary, anyway. Dr Ayub Mirza, in his book, Hum ke Thehray Ajnabi, quotes an interesting conversation between Faiz and a certain colonel sahib in jail:
The colonel asked: "What is your religion?" Faiz told him that his religion was the same, which was that of Maulana Rumi. Hearing Maulana Rumi's name, the colonel was satisfied and cheerfully remarked: "Oh, in that way, we are all brothers. You are giving them a nice lesson (teaching the Quran to the jail inmates)." Long after Faiz's release from jail, he chanced to meet the colonel again, who still seemed curious about the poet's religion and asked: "Faiz sahib, what was the religion of Maulana Rumi?" Faiz replied: "The same as the one that I profess."
Dr Fahmida Hussain, in her brief discourse, rightly pointed out that changes used to occur in the lives of creative and emotional poets. Therefore, the claim that Shaikh Ayaz had detached himself from the cause of the common people might not be true. With the passage of time, he had mellowed, and he was also a broken soul, disappointed and bitter at the way in which politics was moving. He was devoted to Shah Latif Bhitai, whose poetry must have strengthened his faith in humanity.
Akbar Leghari defined Shaikh Ayaz in four phases - the early age of youthful romanticism, the period of revolutionary zeal, then a period of silence and resignation, and, finally, his search for solace in sufism.
All one could say at the end is that artists and poets are complex human beings, and ready or trite judgments should be avoided.
* * * * *
A political analyst can write an essay about a country and the conditions prevailing there without even visiting that country, thanks to newspapers and televisions channels which provide tons of information every day. But, can a fiction writer also write a story about a place, he has never visited and about the people, he has never met?
Fiction writing as the critics say is a delicate work. One has to peep into the soul of people and at least observe if not share their experience in life from close quarters. You contrive a plot, employ some characters and assign them different jobs to carry your message to a desired end. Thus a story is woven, but, it will lack authenticity and the characters will be like puppets moving around as directed by the writer without personal experience.
However, Zaheer Akhtar Bidri, a senior fiction writer and author of around six collections, must be congratulated for his stories on Iraq, Palestine and other places he has never seen. This was made possible for him by his instinctive feeling for the oppressed and yet brave people fighting for their freedom. This writer has had the privilege of having gone through some of the stories in Zaheer Akhtar's collection, Rait ke Bagolay, and to admire his penmanship.
The book was presented at a function at the Karachi Press Club. Sadly, I missed the occasion. However, I came to know about the opinions expressed there by some of those, who commented on the book and were all praise for it. One cannot help but agree with Dr Hanif Fauq, who reportedly said that this attempt by Zaheer Akhtar was a new trend in his work and no other writer had as yet focussed on such issues.