| 05 May 2004 | Wednesday | 14 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1425 |
Example of tolerance
Shifting sands of Europe
About ten days ago, President Karzai visited Kandahar to persuade the local residents to defy Taliban threats and to register as voters for the presidential and assembly elections scheduled for September this year.
He used the opportunity to emphasize his government's desire to offer all Taliban, except for its leaders who he estimated numbered no more than 150, a general amnesty, and called upon them to register as voters.
He claimed that his government was in talks with some of the Taliban but provided no indication of how successful these talks had been. There has been no word from the Taliban, at least publicly on this reiteration of the Karzai offer, now officially blessed by the American ambassador, the American military commander in Afghanistan.
A few days earlier, however, Mullah Dadullah, a Taliban commander and a member of the 10-member Supreme Council appointed by Mullah Omar, said, in an interview to Iranian Radio, that the Taliban controlled some 26 districts in the southern and southeastern provinces of Afghanistan.
He added that attacks would be intensified further in the summer, reiterating his warning that the Taliban would target all those who participated in the forthcoming elections.
Dadullah's threats are credible. President Karzai was on his way back to Kabul when local officials stated that they had arrested a man carrying a bomb close to the road that the presidential convoy was to have used a few minutes later.
Practically at the same time, a UN spokesman was holding a press conference in Kabul to announce that because of the security situation all UN activities including voter registration had been temporarily suspended in the Kandahar region.
So much for the security situation in the south and southeast of the country where the trouble-making is attributed to the Taliban. In the north, there is little indication that there has been any agreement on curbing the excesses of warlords or bringing under control the rivalries between Dostum and Marshal Fahim's protege Atta Mohammad.
General Dostum was in Kabul for meetings with President Karzai and ambassador Khalilzad a fortnight ago but there is no indication that Dostum has agreed to a timetable for the disarming of his militia or that he has tempered his opposition to Defence Minister Marshal Fahim and Interior Minister Jalali who continues to hold a cabinet rank in Karzai's government.
In the west, a token national force continues to be in Herat but maintains a low profile. Governor Ismail, or Emir Ismail as he likes to style himself, is clearly in control of Herat and its environs.
He will pursue with impunity his vendetta against the former military commander Nayebzada, whom he holds responsible for the death of his son, and will penalize all residents of Baghdis - Nayebzada's home province - that he can lay his hands on.
The government's writ, such as it is, remains confined to Kabul. The ISAF's (International Security Assistance Force) expansion plan remains in the doldrums. A delegation from Nato was recently in Kabul and the Deputy Secretary General Minutto Ruzo, having first defended Nato's performance as the leader of ISAF promised that by June the organization would set up five PRTs (Provincial Reconstruction Teams) in addition to the German manned PRT in Kunduz.
He also said, without being more specific, that Nato was considering contributing towards border control and other measures to bolster security in Afghanistan.
Presumably, this subject will be discussed at the Nato summit in June. The American ambassador to Nato, Nicholas Burns, has said that, "there is no question that Afghanistan is Nato's priority number one. It is the most important mission that we are running right now, because the stakes are highest."
The fact of the matter is, however, that Nato has been in charge of ISAF since August 2003. The expansion of ISAF's mandate allowing it to provide security beyond Kabul was granted by the UN Security Council last October.
Much was made then of the significance of Nato having assumed a military responsibility outside Europe and for the need to ensure that this was a success. And yet in the many months that have gone by, there has been precious little to show for the Nato effort to get its members to provide either troops or equipment for Afghanistan.
Even now, it is certain that five new PRTs will be set up by Nato largely by drawing upon forces already in Afghanistan and will go only to one or the other of the eight Afghan provinces (out of 32) in the west and the north that are deemed to be reasonably secure and where Nato forces will not be in "harm's way". It should be noted that the additional forces required, if the pattern is set on Kunduz, would not exceed 2,000 men.
Ambassador Burns has also said that America wants Nato to take over the entire military operation in Afghanistan even while conceding that it is not likely to happen this year.
This, to say the least, is a forlorn hope. Despite all the words, no leader in Europe is prepared to brave the wrath of an electorate that does not, to put it bluntly, regard the campaign in Afghanistan as an interest vital enough to justify the sacrifice of European lives.
Had this not been so, even the resource-strapped European military could have found 2,000 men in less than the 10 months it has now taken. On the other hand, the very fact that the Americans want to hand over the operation to Nato will fuel fresh doubts about American steadfastness and make for added insecurity.
On subject of preparation for the elections, it seems that despite all its efforts the UN has so far been able to register fewer than 1.8 million of the estimated 10.5 million eligible voters.
If the Taliban prove to be as effective as they seem to have been in the last few weeks in disrupting UN work, there is very little chance that voter registration will be completed by September, particularly in the south and southeast.
The prospects are that recent developments in Iraq and the agreement that President Bush has made with Prime Minister Sharon of Israel on the Palestine issue will exacerbate anti-American sentiment and provide many more foot soldiers to the Taliban making the task of the UN even more difficult.
The DDR (Disarming, Demobilizing and Reintegration) programme has not moved ahead with the expected alacrity. The deputy commander of the ISAF, briefing Pakistani journalists in Kabul a few days ago, conceded that so far even the removal of heavy weapons from Kabul, that was to have been the first step in the implementation of the Bonn agreement, has not been completed.
However, he claimed that 80 per cent of the removal has been completed and the rest will be done so by the end of this month. As regards the DDR, he said that this process would be completed only by mid-2005 though he expected 40 per cent of the task to be completed in this month.
To my mind, there is little prospect of this being achieved. But even if it is, it means that when elections are held the warlords will still control the bulk of their private armies and will obviously use them to ensure that voting proceeds along the lines they want.
The most daunting facet, and the one which is of greatest immediate concern to Pakistan, is the bogging down of the campaign against the Al Qaeda and Taliban elements despite the fresh reinforcements of troops that the Americans brought into the southeastern region and the campaign launched by Pakistan in South Waziristan.
Lt. Gen. Barno, the commander of American forces in Afghanistan, and one of the Americans who hitherto had been most appreciative of the costs the Waziristan operation entailed for Pakistan, clearly disagrees with the view that foreigners in the tribal areas will, after being given amnesty, live there peacefully.
By his reckoning they "will not be reconciled". His view is that there are significant elements of foreign fighters, "Arabs, Chechens, Uzbeks who are still using that area to advance their terrorist aims. That threat remains, it has not gone away, and the Pakistani government and military will have to address that."
It is difficult for Pakistan to maintain that this assessment of the foreigners, undeniably present in South Waziristan, is incorrect. The Arabs, Chechens and Uzbeks do not want to live in one of the most inhospitable terrains in the world only to bring up their families in the most unfavourable of circumstances. They do so to be able to serve a cause they believe in.
It would also be naive to suggest that Pakistan takes seriously the pledges of good behaviour from Nek Mohammad and his cohorts when our own sources (PTV) report that Nek Mohammad was a commander of a guerrilla training camp in Afghanistan before he decided to take his trainees, most of them from Chechnya and Uzbekistan, to South Waziristan, to use as a launching pad for attacks inside Afghanistan.
He also told a Pakistani reporter, immediately after receiving his pardon, that he still swore allegiance to "Amirul Momineen" Mullah Omar rather than Pakistan - because the Taliban leader was "the caliph of all Muslims".
President Musharraf is on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand expelling such foreigners and restraining such Pakistani nationals is a vital interest, but on the other, the South Waziristan operation failed to achieve its purpose not only because of poor preparation but also because it was perceived as an action undertaken entirely at America's behest. This was understandable.
The government has done little to control the other illegal trafficking across the Afghan border which has been harmful to Pakistan's economic interests. Similarly, it has done far too little to prevent the growth of extremist forces.
Under these circumstances, it will be argued that the operation cannot be safely resumed until the tribesmen and the Pakistanis generally gain a better sense of how important such action is for safeguarding Pakistan's own interests.
On the other hand, the Americans are getting impatient. There is only bad news from Iraq. There is bad news on the Israeli Palestine front. There is little positive action that they can point to in Afghanistan.
President Bush needs a success as he goes into the final stages of the election campaign and he needs it particularly with regard to terrorism. The sole superpower can be exigent; a sole superpower with a beleaguered president seeking re-election will be even more so.
Against this backdrop, Pakistan's present policy of temporizing will not work. It is probable that despite the extension of the amnesty period no foreigner in South Waziristan is going to offer himself for registration.
And it is clear that even if they did this would not be a guarantee of their good behaviour or that of their local collaborators. Difficult decisions will have to be made and then carried through.
The writer is a former foreign secretary of Pakistan.
Example of tolerance
Have you noticed how every nation, every society, every individual claims that tolerance of political, religious and social views of others is the cardinal feature of their culture? Compare this with the tolerance actually available on the ground and you come to the conclusion that either all those nations, societies and individuals are liars and hypocrites, or they don't know what tolerance means.
We take pride in the fact that Islam is the most tolerant of religions. Nobody can deny this fact. But what about Muslims, and particularly the Muslims of Pakistan? Are they as tolerant as their faith teaches them to be? Please note that I do not accuse Muslims in general of being intolerant, only those who belong to the land of the pure where even the government has been made intolerant by certain laws promulgated by General Ziaul Haq. As for Muslims of other lands, I am writing this piece specially to highlight an amazing example from the Far East.
Malaysia is a country that is set to become the pride of the Muslim world for a number of reasons which I need not go into. Its constitution has this common feature with that of Pakistan that it is a federal constitution.
Just as we have provinces in Pakistan which can elect any government they like, Malaysia has a number of semi-autonomous states. One of them is Kelantan, ruled by the Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PIS), which is politically opposed to the national party of Mahathir Muhammad (since gone into retirement).
It is just like a province in Pakistan being ruled by the Jamaat-i-Islami or one of the jehadi parties. Mahathir did not like the PIS and its maulvi chief minister because they are committed to imposing the Shariah in that state while he was all for a pluralistic society in a country with a 40 per cent Chinese population.
The destruction by Afghanistan's Taliban of the invaluable ancient standing Buddhas, veritable colossi, carved into a hillside in Bamiyan, is still fresh in public memory. But look at what the PIS government allowed in Kelantan where Southeast Asia's biggest sitting Buddha was formally inaugurated some time ago at a place called Tumpat, even as the debate about religious extremism went on in Malaysia and elsewhere.
Let me quote the AFP report on the subject. "Orange-robed monks chanted prayers and lit two giant candles to inaugurate the 99-foot high, 156-foot wide statue of Buddha sitting cross-legged in a meditation pose atop Wat Machimmaram temple. The ceremony kicked off a week-long festival that will culminate when the Buddha with pure gold lips will have his giant tear-drop shaped heart installed.
"Hundreds of ethnic Chinese who make up less than five per cent of Kelantan's 1.4 million people burned joss sticks and stuck thin gold foil on the Buddha's heart which was being displayed on a makeshift stage. A hundred thousand worshippers from as far as Thailand, Singapore and Sri Lanka, plus 500 Thai monks, were expected to turn up for the formal installation ceremony.
The statue took ten years to build and cost more than a million dollars. It is the second giant Buddha image in this Muslim-dominated state. The first, a reclining version, was opened in the 1980s and is one of the biggest in Asia.
"According to Hu Pang Chaw, state government officer in charge of Chinese affairs, the PIS was tolerant towards other religions but is widely misunderstood. All races live peacefully in Kelantan state and speak Malay fluently.
He said there were many misconceptions about the PIS but critics should come and see the truth themselves; the PIS government does not enforce Islam on the people and lays stress on the Islamic concepts about justice, fighting corruption, cleanliness and true freedom."
This was the attitude towards the minorities of a committed Islamic government in a Muslim country. Compare this with what the self-styled Islamic government of General Ziaul Haq did in 1982 or thereabouts.
One of his numerous amendments to the constitution involved removal of the word "free" from the Article that inter alia stated, "Religious minorities will be free to propagate their faith..." On the face of it, this appears to be a minor change, but you can imagine how the minorities feel about it.
Our government leaders are not tired of proclaiming that there is absolute freedom of faith and belief in Pakistan, whereas, what to say of criticising any cultural practice of the Muslims, the minorities are not even permitted (as the above-mentioned amendment shows) to pursue their religious practices with impunity.
Over the decades successive governments have allowed themselves to suffer this and other amendments till we have now reached the stage where no regime, howsoever powerful, can even dream of abrogating them for fear of being accused of appeasing the non-Muslims.
Fifty-five years after independence when the Quaid-i-Azam made his historic pronouncement to the minorities that they were free to go to their temples, etc. etc., we Muslims of Pakistan must ask ourselves one thing.
If we are treating the minorities liberally then why do they feel they are second-class citizens? Why have they not been able to merge themselves in the mainstream despite our protestations? One reason has been the imposition of separate electorates, which made them realise they were a people apart.
To a military ruler (General Pervez Musharraf) goes the credit for undoing that system before the general election in October 2002.
Among Pakistani Muslims every mosque is labelled sect-wise, and only namazis from that sect may say their prayers in it. I love the example of broad-mindedness set by the Holy Prophet (PBUH), whose birth anniversary we celebrated on Monday with great devotion, when he directed that the Christians from Najran, who had come to have talks with him in Madinah, should be housed and fed in what must be the Masjid-e-Nabvi of today. I wonder to which "sect" the Masjid belonged at that time!
Let me ask a question. On Sunday, 17 August 1947, the Quaid-i-Azam and Miss Fatima Jinnah attended a church service in Karachi, a thanksgiving for the creation of Pakistan, conducted with true Christian spirit and ritual.
As things have come to pass in Pakistan, can President Pervez Musharraf or PM Zafrullah Jamali or Mr Shujaat Husain, the Chaudhry of Pakistan, with all their loud claims of popularity and public backing, dare to attend a religious service in a church or temple today? God help "tolerant" Pakistan!
Shifting sands of Europe
The European Union, whose parliament approved the Third Generation Cooperation Agreement with Pakistan on April 22, 2004, is Pakistan's largest trading partner and the world's largest economic bloc.
By virtue of its two permanent seats on the UN Security Council, its role in Nato, long-standing ties with the Third World and its recent expansion to a 25-member union, the EU plays a significant political and economic role in the world community.
While still lagging behind its own vision, the EU is clearly ahead of all other regional blocs in the quest for an identity that transcends the traditional sovereignty of nation-states. While Asean has made considerable progress, Saarc took two decades before taking concrete steps towards regional cooperation and integration.
The EU's expansion heralds not merely the extended reach of EU law and policies but also signals the transformation of the Union into an entirely new geo-political entity.
At the same time, it signifies the end of the dream of a "United States of Europe", with its homogeneity deeply diluted by the admission of largely East European members.
While all earlier expansions brought about, in varying degrees, a political shift in the orientation of the EU, the recent 10-state expansion is a clear departure from the founding fathers' vision of a homogeneous Europe. The expansion is, however, an impressive symbol of the EU's success in spreading stability across the continent.
The founding fathers of the European Community, now the European Union, although imbued with the necessary incentive of idealism, were practical, hard-headed people who followed the precept of one of the Community's great founding fathers, the Belgian statesman Paul Henry Spaak.
"The best Europeans," he said, "are not those with the most beautiful and generous ideas who become discouraged when these fail to materialize. The good Europeans are those who know where the difficulties lie; who try to solve them, and who never allow themselves to become discouraged."
These are useful precepts for the leaders of South Asia looking to strengthen regional cooperation, provided that the way is first cleared by Indo-Pakistan understanding over the achievement of the legitimate rights of the Kashmiri people and the fulfilment of their aspirations.
It may be pertinent to recall that the European Community was built on the stepping stones of the Franco-German reconciliation, without which the great achievements of European unification, that we see today, would have remained a mirage. A similar reconciliation has yet to be reached in South Asia.
The expansion of Europe reflects a transition in the political status of the countries of Eastern and Central Europe, on the path of democracy, with the admission of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Slovenia and Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Cyprus and Malta into the EU.
One of the likely sources of discord in the enlarged Union could be fear on the part of the larger member-states (France, Germany, Italy and the UK) of being crowded out by the increasing number of smaller members and the resulting conflict over the question of weighted voting (favouring smaller states) in the Council of Europe and the European Commission.
Other imponderables include prospects for a more permanent presidency to replace the present rotating six-month presidency, as espoused by the larger members.
The enlargement will also highlight the vast gap between the richest and the poorest states of the Union and exacerbate the already existing struggle over resources.
While new political structures will facilitate the objective of European unity, the Union is already rent with serious disagreements over the invasion of Iraq and the war against terror, with France and Germany pushing for an independent policy and the UK espousing a firmly pro-US line.
However, the enlargement will create not only new divisions but also opportunities for new alliances within the Union. Britain has already enlisted the support of Poland and some other East European states in defending the primacy of Nato (including the US), while the French and Germans, with Belgian support, continue to work for a more autonomous European military posture.
Different approaches towards the current US unilateralism will constitute a serious obstacle to a common European foreign policy.
The 100th anniversary of the historic Entente Cordiale between Britain and France, which fell on April 8, 2004, was marked by the two states occupying opposite positions in a divided Europe on matters concerning the new EU constitution, relations with the US, Iraq and the Middle East.
The Entente Cordiale of 1904 had revolved mainly around colonial issues, with Britain agreeing to leave Morocco for France and the latter agreeing to let Britain have a free hand in Egypt.
The present polarization, however, centres not on disputed African spheres of influence but on issues of direct concern to the geo-political and geo-economic interests of Europe and the US.
The EU is being pulled in two directions with Prime Minister Blair insisting on partnership with the US as the panacea for Europe's ills and the French on Europe becoming an alternate centre of power.
With the era of Soviet domination only recently ended in East and Central Europe, the concern for national sovereignty on the part of most new entrants will produce greater emphasis on an inter-governmental approach at the expense of supra-nationalism.
The entry of the Eastern and Central European states will involve the EU more closely with issues concerning Russia, that until recently held suzerainty over the affairs of East Europe. Relations with Russia will, therefore, need to be handled by the EU with greater sensitivity.
Although to a great extent the recent expansion completes the original vision of European unification, other countries are already knocking on EU doors. While Romania and Bulgaria have been asked to undertake more comprehensive economic and administrative reforms, Croatia is also in the queue.
Talks with Turkey are expected to be renewed in December 2004. With Turkey no longer held responsible for blocking the admission of a unified Cyprus in the EU on May 1, 2004, the remaining obstacles include EU concern about human rights, a democratic dispensation, economic reforms and the Kurdish problem. The economy is in the doldrums with a negative growth rate of 0.45 per cent and an inflation of 30.4 per cent expected in the current year.
It is feared that the autonomous Kurdish entity in occupied Iraq may fuel similar ambitions on the part of the Turkish Kurds, which in turn may provoke a military response that could complicate Turkey's entry into the EU.
Influential political circles in the EU make no secret of the fears of Turkey's Islamic character constituting a strong deterrent to its acceptance in EU ranks, in the context of the current Islamic phobia afflicting the West.
The management of Europe's single currency will remain an important divisive factor. The stability and growth pact setting out the fiscal framework of the EU has already run into serious difficulties with France and Germany failing to control their budget deficits.
The failure of the growth and stability pact highlights the difficulty of having a common currency, side by side with a dozen different, national fiscal policies. For five of the EU newcomers, May 2004 is a doubly historic month with the Baltic three plus Slovakia and Slovenia not only formally joining the EU but also Nato.
The latter entry will, however, attract less interest than membership into the EU. The required ratification of the new constitution by all member states will not be smooth sailing either. Britain has joined the list of states planning a referendum on the issue, apart from Ireland, Denmark and the Netherlands.
The writer is a former ambassador.