| August 3, 2005 | Wednesday | Jumadi-us-Sani 26, 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Dubai interlude
Setback to Sudanese peace
THERE are reports that the US now intends to put greater emphasis on “ideology” than on military means in the war on terror. That so far the overwhelming emphasis has been on force needs no re-telling. Whether it is Afghanistan or Iraq, it is the excessive use of force that has cost lives without in any way contributing to the goal in view. The attack on Afghanistan was launched in October 2001, and nearly four years later there is very little progress there of a lasting kind. Tons of TNT dropped on Afghanistan’s hills and dales have caused the deaths of thousands of civilians and destroyed shacks and hovels, but the real enemy has survived. Recent happenings in Afghanistan are indicative of a revival of the Taliban insurgency. The same is true of Iraq, where the use of force has resulted in the death of 100,000 civilians with no sign that the task of Iraq’s pacification and reconstruction is about to begin.
Speaking to reporters over the weekend, the White House press secretary said the US would now put greater emphasis on “freedom and democracy”. He said the US had realized that its past policy — letting dictators rule the Middle East in exchange for peace and stability — was wrong. “... we did not get either,” he said. The realization is belated, because America has supported some of the world’s most ruthless dictators during the Cold War. Saddam Hussein was America’s blue-eyed boy who received its full support in his war against Iran. Similarly, all monarchies have enjoyed American patronage in return for bases. If these potentates and dictators oppressed their own people, the US could not care less so long as they were at its beck and call. The problem was worsened by America’s unqualified support to Israel. The Arab rulers may not have had that intention, but because of their pro-American policies they were seen by the Arab people as Israel’s hidden friends. This has been a major factor behind the rise of terrorism.
Now America would like to “spread” democracy. This cannot be done the way it is being done in Afghanistan and Iraq. Leaders foisted from above will always lack credibility and will not be accepted by their people as their genuine leaders. If democracy is to take roots in the Arab world, it must grow from within and in conditions of national freedom; it cannot grow under foreign occupation, as in Iraq and Afghanistan; nor in kingdoms and sheikhdoms whose rulers are pro-American potentates. The world has noted how the heat on Libya was turned off the moment President Moammar Qadhafi fell in line.
If the US wants to eliminate terror “ideologically”, it must first put pressure on autocratic rulers for political reforms. In specific terms, this should mean the right to freedom of speech and assembly, an independent press and free elections instead of stage-managed referendums that give dictators a 98 per cent Yes vote. Above all, America should work earnestly for the emergence of a sovereign Palestinian state with Al Quds as its capital. So long as Israel continues to oppress the Palestinians and rob them of their right to freedom, there will be no dearth of terrorists and suicide bombers.
IN HIS immediate reaction, Maulana Fazlur Rahman has been quite subdued about his deportation from Dubai. He told a news conference on his arrival in Peshawar yesterday that he did not want to make this a personal issue and that it was the government that should take up the matter with the UAE authorities. If Islamabad has not already done so, it should. The treatment meted out to the leader of the opposition at Dubai airport should be regarded as a major diplomatic incident and treated accordingly. Maulana Fazlur Rahman said he was given a visa by the UAE embassy before he left for Libya; he was in Dubai on transit before going on to Saudi Arabia. The incident is, therefore, as mystifying as it is deplorable. In his comments on the issue, the federal information minister has, instead of clarifying the situation, made matters worse. He says that the maulana was on the UAE’s “black” list. If so, why should that country’s embassy in Islamabad have given him a visa and why wasn’t the maulana informed about it by our government? The JUI leader’s association with the Taliban and his attitude towards the current “war on terrorism” are also well-established facts and not a sudden development. A question has been raised about his frequent trips to Libya; if that is suspicious, someone should tell us why. The Gulf sheikhs are treated with the greatest deference when they come to Pakistan even on private visits, mostly hunting trips, and given the close relations between Pakistan and the UAE, both have a responsibility to come out with a credible explanation for the incident.
In April, Maulana Samiul Haq was stopped at Brussels airport and refused entry, even though he was part of a Pakistani delegation on a trip to the European parliament. He too had a visa, despite his established jihadist links and extremist views. But that was Europe, increasingly wary of politicians like him, and it was Pakistan’s error in the first place in having included him in an official delegation. We would like to believe that the Gulf countries are more hospitable places. But, sadly, the militant mess at home apparently is making people look at us with suspicion everywhere.
THE death of Sudanese Vice-President John Garang in a helicopter crash over the weekend has come at a time when peace between Muslims in Sudan’s north and Christians and animists in the south is still at a nascent stage. Millions reposed their hopes in the former rebel whose charismatic leadership qualities put him in command of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army for over two decades in what was Africa’s longest civil war. It is estimated that two million people died in the conflict. Mr Garang’s towering personality and vision for the development of the neglected south qualified him for the job of bringing together disparate tribes on a common platform. While there were controversial aspects to his role as rebel leader, Mr Garang will be remembered as one of the main architects of the peace deal signed last January between the southern rebels and the ruling Arab elite.
His death has left a big question mark over the implementation of the deal. Already, dozens have been killed in rioting in Khartoum following the death of the vice-president who took oath only three weeks ago, in accordance with a power-sharing formula. The challenge before both Khartoum and the SPLA is formidable, and it is to be hoped that neither sides tries to subvert the peace deal, which, among other things, promises equitable revenue-sharing between the north and the south — and an option for the latter to secede after six years. Peace must be pursued on all fronts and by all parties, as a return to arms is the last thing Sudan can afford at the moment, especially as a durable political solution has still to be worked out for the ongoing Darfur tragedy in the western part of the country.