Qadhafi's initiative

Within a week of the capture of Saddam Hussein, Bush and Blair scored a significant breakthrough in the war against terror, as Libya's Muammar Qadhafi agreed to open his WMD facilities to international inspection.

Apparently, he had entered into secret negotiations with the US and British governments around the time the war on Iraq was being planned in February/March 2003. After preliminaries had been sorted out between intelligence officials, intensive political consultations took place that led to this announcement, which was claimed to be a result of the tough US policy against terrorism.

In an interview with CNN's Andrea Koppel shortly after the announcement, Qadhafi made it clear that Libya did not have any weapons of mass destruction. It did have some programmes of research and development that it was ready to open to international inspection in order to remove any doubts. He also emphasized that the purpose of this initiative was to enable Libya to have normal relations with all countries to advance the welfare of its people.

Qadhafi was a young colonel of 27 years when he led a coup against the monarchy in Libya that was cooperating with the West in the development of its newly discovered oil wealth. He had been deeply upset by the Israeli rout of the Arabs in 1967, which he attributed to corrupt Arab regimes collaborating with the western imperialists.

He, therefore, became something of a maverick, extending support to nationalistic movements, including those resorting to terrorism. While pursuing an ideology that included elements of nationalism, socialism and Islam, he pursued an agenda that was based on opposition to western hegemony.

This line of policy led him to back all movements hostile to the West. He also rejected monarchical regimes, most of which found it expedient to collaborate with the West. His identification with anti-status quo forces brought him into continuous confrontation with an entrenched establishment he was neither powerful enough nor sufficiently influential to bend to his goals regardless of their merit.

He tried to profit from the brief period of political advantage that was temporarily enjoyed by the Arab world following the oil price increase of the 1970s. Though Egypt won back some military initiative in the conflict of 1973 with Israel, eventually the power realities on the ground reasserted themselves.

His militant support to liberation movements and particularly his backing to the Palestinian cause brought him into conflict with the US that considered his policies dangerous and provocative. Following his involvement in Palestinian attacks on American ships, President Reagan ordered air strikes against him in 1984 in which his daughter was killed. The involvement of Libya with the downing of a Pan-American flight in December 1988 over Scotland led to sanctions being imposed on Libya that seriously affected the country's economy.

The US victory in the cold war in 1989, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and the Gulf War of 1991 placed the US in a position of such dominance, that Qadhafi began to see the need for a more pragmatic approach in his policies. He began by agreeing to hand over the two Libyans accused in the Pan-Am crash for trial by an international tribunal.

Without formally accepting responsibility, he also agreed to pay compensation amounting to $2.7 billion to the families of the 270 persons killed in the crash. This led the UN to lift the sanctions on Libya.

However, the US did not lift its sanctions mainly because it categorized Libya as a "terrorist state" that was supporting and financing international terrorism. With the US pursuing its war against terrorism with utmost vigour, the announcement on December 21 that Qadhafi had agreed to international inspection of Libya's installations and facilities was viewed as a crowning achievement of the Bush doctrine.

The continuing bloodletting in Iraq, following the victory claimed by Bush on May 1, 2003, had begun to raise doubts whether the policy of pre-emptive war was in the US interests in the long run. The opposition Democrats considered the costs in casualties and cash of the war in Iraq as a point on which Bush was vulnerable. The surrender by Qadhafi to western pressure a week after the capture of Saddam appeared to have transformed the perspective, and made the prospects of Bush winning a second term much brighter.

Qadhafi's initiative has already been followed by a tougher line by the US in pursuing its anti-terrorist agenda, as well as its goal of preventing the emergence of any credible challenge to its total supremacy. The possibility of other countries such as Iran and North Korea resisting US pressure has been virtually foreclosed.

Iran was already extending cooperation to IAEA on the inspection of its nuclear facilities, and even North Korea has invited a US delegation. The current situation has led the US to demanding intrusive inspections of its own rather than depend on UN agencies.

Significantly, the news of Libyan compliance has been followed by a growing number of reports in the US media about Pakistan's involvement in nuclear proliferation. A report attributed to IAEA quoted references in Iranian documents to assistance by Pakistan in uranium enrichment.

The assurances given by President Musharraf that no official level assistance was given by Pakistan and that the references might be to action by individual scientists have been followed by reports that enquiries have been instituted against such scientists.

For the time being, both official and media reports in the US concerning Pakistan reflect confidence in President Musharraf, as a reliable ally in the war against terrorism. He is also seen as a force for moderation in the Islamic world, and his strong opposition to religious extremism is appreciated.

However, the increased strength of religious parties following the elections in 2002, and the alleged sympathy among some of them for the Taliban are seen as a potential menace. Should something happen to President Musharraf, who has been subjected to assassination attempts, concerns are expressed about Pakistan's nuclear assets falling into the hands of extremists hostile to the US.

Qadhafi's initiative in opening up Libya's WMD facilities for inspection has greatly reinforced the influence of the hardliners in the Bush administration. The alleged role played by Pakistan in transferring nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea suggests an intensification of pressure by Washington on Islamabad to fall in with its non-proliferation goals. Washington's attitude remains discriminatory, as it has virtually accepted Israel and India as nuclear powers.

That the US is pursuing a long-term strategic agenda is also reflected in references to the role of China in assisting Pakistan in its nuclear ambitions. Election year politics in the US is already playing up the need for the strong leadership of Bush in ensuring US security.

With the US involvement likely to continue in Afghanistan and Iraq, Pakistan's support remains a strategic necessity. The interest that the US is taking in promoting a settlement in Kashmir also has an indirect bearing on Pakistan's need for nuclear deterrence, which might be hard to justify if this issue is resolved.

Coming back to the US-Libya relationship, Qadhafi's initiative will not lead to normalization unless the US reciprocates the gesture. The Libyan prime minister publicly stated in late December that if the US did not lift its sanctions by mid-May 2004, Libya would discontinue payment of compensation to the relatives of those who died in the Pan-Am crash of 1988. The US may have achieved a breakthrough but unless it remains mindful of the sensitivities of the Arab and Islamic countries, it may not win their confidence.

The belief that its overwhelming strength entitles the US to dictate terms rather than build a stable and just global structure would only prolong conflict and tension in the world. The war against terrorism will succeed only if the roots of terrorism are addressed, in terms of an inequitable political and economic order in the world.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.

Rewriting history

In this modern age there have been many characters who were afflicted by an almost pathological hatred of Muslims and Islam. There are of course the extremists in India who say that Muslims should either convert or leave the country and go back where they came from. (They forget to add that the descendants of the Aryans should also go back to Central Asia!)

There are individuals too in many parts of the world who are similarly obsessed, the most prominent among them in recent times was Slobodan Milosevic, president of Serbia, who prided himself on having caused the deaths of more than a hundred thousand Muslims of Bosnia and is now answering for his crimes in The Hague.

In every country that goes to the extreme of undertaking ethnic cleansing, genocide or mass murder of another race, there is also a strong section of opinion opposed to this barbaric practice. We accuse India of using the same tactics against Muslims in Kashmir, but there are human rights activists and ordinary sensitive people in that country, as well as a vocal press, that openly denounces such activity. Then why did no one in Serbia oppose Milosevic in this dirty work reminiscent of the Holocaust? Is it that an entire nation was devoid of human feelings?

The answer lies in the teaching of history. The Serbs (and Croats) are taught from the cradle that the Turks had once conquered their country and ruled it for 400 years, that they used to take away young boys to Istanbul and bring them up as Muslim Jannissaries and then employ them against their own people.

All this was hundreds of years ago but sordid details of the Turkish rule are even now ingrained in youthful minds in the Balkans, and purposely so. The result is that the Serbs and Croats and other racial types of the region (including Greek youth) grow up with a hatred for Muslims. It's something like the Hindu revenge syndrome against a thousand years of Muslim rule in India.

Intellectuals throughout the world ask one question; "Cannot history be rewritten in a way so as to expunge it of bitterness and animosity - relics of events many centuries old - without distorting the truth? Just as the Muslims of India are helpless against the powerful Hindu community today, the Muslims of the Balkans are equally incapable of inflicting any harm on the local Christians.

So why not forgive and forget?"I can't take the liberty of advising my South Asian brothers and sisters across the border but I certainly can expect sane elements in Pakistani society to think seriously about revising school and college textbooks so that they should reflect history somewhat rationally.

Or even subjectively, if you like, but without calling the Hindus double-faced crooks and hypocrites who are out to shed Muslim blood. Let us not forget that it was always the Muslims who invaded India, and that too not for the glory of Islam. Only Muhammad bin Qasim came for a valid reason but he too remained to conquer, for in those times, conquest was considered a legitimate activity.

This thing about calling names. I read a letter in a newspaper the other day about an Indian diplomat in Islamabad paying a social visit to a friendly Muslim family. According to the letter, a small boy of five or six, coming to know that the guests were from India, began to shout "Hindu kutta! Hindu kutta!" Who had taught him that? His elders or a biased book on social studies digested by his senior brothers and sisters? In any case, it can hardly be his fault for he was too young to know what he was doing. But his family should be ashamed of his uncivilised behaviour.

Recently I received an e-mail message from one Aditya Satsangi in India (sankarshan @ hotmail.com) which is the provocation for this piece. After referring to Pakistan as a failed state, and threatening us with the might of the Indian army, and calling us meat-eaters and killers of goats and one another, he asked the question, "Why is that wherever there are Muslims, there is strife and violence?" The answer he supplied himself by saying, "Because you Muslims are all b....." Where did he learn to be so bitter and violent in his language? And what was the need?

Some years ago there was a cultural gathering in New Delhi about which a sketchy press report lies in my scrapbook. Organised as a memorial to Mahatma Gandhi, it was attended by our Dr Mubarak ali, the historian.

At this gathering Dr Mubarak Ali called for re-writing the subcontinent's history and correction of what he called "historical aberrations," and putting historical events in their correct perspective, so that the hatred and misunderstanding prevailing between the people of India and Pakistan could abate. He said textbooks in the two countries had been systematically distorted and that the time had come to reverse the trend.

Indian actor-politician Sunil Dutt was also there. At that time he was undertaking a goodwill tour of South Asian nations which was also to cover Pakistan, and he too spoke on the subject.

He said, "the subcontinent's historians have a special role to play. They should present and write history with great care so that their writings do not create tension and spread disaffection among the two peoples."

Actually the history of the subcontinent where it deals with the interaction between the Muslims coming from the Middle East and Central Asia (whether soldiers of fortune or those looking for better prospects) and the Hindu communities from the Khyber to Cape Comorin, is a complex business.

This interaction covered religious differences, military overlordship, economic impact, conversions, and societal changes, and it would not do to indulge in new distortions in the process of correcting old ones.

If such an exercise is ever undertaken, the aim should be to write a history that is true and realistic, quoting the different versions of observers and historians from both the communities in cases where conflict of opinion has always existed, as in perceptions about Shivaji and Mahmud of Ghazni. I cannot think of two better examples of the sharp cleavage between concepts of Hindus and Muslims about hero worship of historical figures.

And if some good is achieved, and, in course of time, the minds of the two peoples are rid of prejudices that create bitterness and animosity, what a grand state of affairs could result! In another fifty years we would be living like normal neighbours, never fighting and never reviling one another for what had happened in the past. The only thing is that cricket matches between India and Pakistan may lose the sting and madness of the Battle of Panipat they evoke now. Many people will miss that!

Another world is possible

The Indian prime minister in a recent interview with this paper listed four factors which are forcing Pakistan and India to opt for peace. One of these, he said, was the imperative of globalization which dictates closer cooperation between India and Pakistan for faster economic development.

Another interrelated factor Mr Vajpayee listed was the need for these countries to join hands in the post-cold war world to tackle the numerous economic problems they face. These two are very important compulsions which must be taken into account by Third World countries. It is not very clear in what sense the Indian prime minister understood the "imperative of globalization".

But the fact is that if the developing countries do not want to be overwhelmed by the forces of globalization as they operate today they must act to counter them. Globalization worships the market and believes that the market has its own self-regulatory mechanism which fixes its own problems.

But the champions of the neo-liberalization of today fail to heed the warning given by Keynes more than half a century ago that the market doesn't always regulate itself and resolve its problems. Very often government intervention is needed to correct the market which has gone dysfunctional.

Today there are many who find that the problems caused by the present system are mounting. Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize winning economist, writes in his book Globalization and its Discontents, "Globalization today is not working for many of the world's poor.... It is not working for the stability of the global economy." As a result there is widespread discontent, and globalization is being challenged all over the world.

The problem with globalization is that it is driven by the financial agencies and the multinationals which are not always imbued with human concerns and respect for social justice. True, globalization has many positive dimensions as well.

Thus it has led to the emergence of an international political culture which believes in democracy, human rights and social justice. These are not always achieved by a society but the struggle is constantly taking place and this struggle has been globalized. As a result it creates a greater impact.

Thus Mr Vajpayee admitted that "popular sentiments are overwhelmingly positive" in favour of India-Pakistan peace. This has been demonstrated by the people-to-people dialogue which has been taking place for the past several years between the two countries. The goodwill and intense desire for peace was more than evident at the recent convention of the Pakistan-India Forum for Peace and Democracy held in Karachi. It is this aspect of globalization that has proved to be a boon.

For the first time in contemporary history, popular opinion, which is being expressed on issues of universal concern, has transcended international boundaries. Communication technology has made this phenomenon possible because for once people can share their thoughts and ideas with likeminded men and women from other countries and can even demonstrate their will in a massive show of moral force.

While the India-Pakistan forum is only a small example, which hopefully will grow, the World Social Forum is another demonstration of the will of the people which has already begun to create an impact on government policies and the approach of the financial institutions.

First convened in Porto Allegre (Brazil) in 2001 as the Third World's answer to the World Economic Forum which meets annually in Davos, Switzerland, the WSF has met every year and has grown in strength. The WSF is people-centred and aims at self-reliant progress rather than neo-liberal globalization. Next week it will meet in Mumbai and is expected to draw a big crowd.

It is not just the idea of a crowd of nearly a hundred thousand coming together to register their protest that is exciting. It is the issues they will articulate that are significant and have a profound implication for the course world politics will take in the coming years. Gone are the rigid concepts such as one of national sovereignty which perceived a country's policy on women, trade, human rights, and so on as falling in its national domain. In fact, states displayed great sensitivity when any outside power tried to intervene with reference to these issues.

The WSF has now emerged as a forum to suggest an alternative to the imperialistic globalization process and the phenomena of neo-liberalism and world domination by international capital. The slogan adopted at Porto Allegre was "Another world is possible".

Its thrust is on countering the dehumanizing effect of globalization by reinforcing the humanizing measures being taken by the people's movements which have become the mainstay of the World Social Forum. The key guidelines of the WSF, as enunciated in its charter of principles, are respect for human rights, participatory democracy, peaceful relations in equality and solidarity, and ethnic/communal tolerance.

All these aims can only be attained by mobilizing the people at the grassroots level. The WSF has the collective strength of the people on its side. Since many governments have tended to act as agents of the capitalists and large corporations which are ruling the world, the people will have to raise their voice against the governments which fail to take note of their interest.

In this context the governments should heed the voice of civil society if they do not want to be placed in a position where they may find themselves being challenged by a movement which knows no boundaries but shares common concerns. Thus the governments of India and Pakistan know very well - irrespective of what they may proclaim - that war fatigue has set in and the people in both countries feel they have had enough of conflict and now want peace.

It is heartening to see that this realization has now also dawned on the governments in New Delhi and Islamabad. The overtures for the normalization of ties which have been undertaken in recent weeks in South Asia are in line with the thrust towards peace. This is a great opportunity and it should on no count be squandered.

The fact is that globalization has also brought in its wake the tearing down of barriers between civil society organizations in different countries which are networking closely among themselves to create an impact. The significant thing about them is that they pick up relevant issues that are closest to their heart in the areas of their operation and join hands to act as pressure groups. Take for instance the WSF's forthcoming meeting in Mumbai.

The organizers have announced that the meeting will focus on imperialist globalization, patriarchy, militarism and peace, communalism and casteism, all of which are issues of direct relevance to the subcontinent and the most important concerns of the people.

The outcome of the Mumbai moot will have a bearing on the policies of South Asian governments. It augurs well for them that they have taken the initiative themselves and decided to act before the pressure builds up further.

The Social Charter signed by the participants of the twelfth Saarc summit provides for a people-centred framework for social development. It now remains to be seen how close the strategy will be in line with the policy framework adopted by the WSF.