Terrorism: fight is not over

Prime Minister of the Netherlands

FOLLOWING the attacks on September 11 an unprecedented coalition against terrorism was established. The Netherlands, like every country in the European Union and NATO, immediately joined the coalition, as did many countries in other parts of the world, including, of course, Pakistan, which plays such an important role.

During my visit to Pakistan in October, I stressed the Dutch appreciation for the courageous decision of Pakistan to join the coalition. I also underlined our concern for the economic consequences of the refugee problem for Pakistan. The Netherlands has, consequently, considerably increased its humanitarian aid to refugees in the region.

International terrorism has no respect for national borders. Therefore, to confront it and defeat it, it is essential that countries work together — West and East, North and South.

The campaign against terrorism is not a conventional campaign. It requires a variety of tactics. Not just military means, but also freezing bank accounts and cracking down on the financial networks on which terrorists depend to carry out their plans.

Following September 11, the Netherlands compiled a national “Action Plan on the Fight against Terrorism.” The plan contains 45 new measures against terrorism. One of the aims is to effectively track the relation between financial streams and terrorist activities.

Our ability to tackle financial streams is further enhanced now that the EU has reached agreement on additional measures to freeze funds, other financial assets and economic resources of persons who commit, attempt to commit, participate in or facilitate terrorist acts.

Combating the financing of terrorism requires above all an international approach. The Netherlands will ratify the UN convention on the financing of terrorism shortly and calls upon other countries to do likewise.

Increased international cooperation is also called for to ensure that any person who commits or supports terrorist acts is brought to justice. The Netherlands, therefore, stresses the importance of rapid ratification of extradition treaties. In this respect, the Netherlands welcomes the EU agreement on a European arrest warrant, which will facilitate and expedite extradition between the member states.

Apart from national and regional initiatives to combat terrorism, the Netherlands considers the United Nations the most appropriate forum for an integrated and global approach in the fight against terrorism. We, therefore, are and remain committed to the conclusion of a global UN convention on terrorism and call upon all countries to do their utmost to overcome the present difficulties.

Different countries contribute to the coalition in different ways. Of course, the lion’s share of the military effort against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda has been carried out by the United States. But there is recognition on the part of the coalition that the innocent people of Afghanistan should not pay the price for their country being home to an international terrorist network.

The international community has deployed a major humanitarian effort to get food and shelter to people. It is ready to co-operate in the long-term reconstruction of a country ravaged by two decades of war.

Presently, the Netherlands is among the biggest donors of humanitarian aid in the region. This aid is directed to the people of Afghanistan and the Afghan refugees in neighbouring countries, specially Pakistan. More than 30,000 Afghans have found refuge in the Netherlands, which hosts the second largest Afghan refugee community in Europe.

The Netherlands propagated from the beginning a central role for the UN in the process of both humanitarian and political reconstruction. In the view of the Netherlands the EU can play an important role in support of and complementary to UN efforts.

After so many years of conflict, few would have predicted that the meeting of Afghan leaders in Bonn would have achieved such success. As UN secretary general’s representative, Mr Brahimi has said the agreement may not be perfect in the eyes of all Afghans, but it is a remarkable achievement.

Critically, it is based on the idea that all groups in Afghanistan will work together. It rejects the notion that the future of Afghanistan can be based on the domination of one group by another, the root of the problems in the country’s recent past.

Another important part of the Bonn agreement is the request for the Security Council authorizing a multinational stabilization force in Afghanistan. We look forward to making a military contribution to this, thereby, playing our full part in helping a peaceful situation to take hold in Afghanistan so that the interim administration, which takes office today (Saturday), can get on with its important and urgent tasks.

A great deal has been achieved over the past three months. Afghanistan is about to have a new broad-based administration. But our fight against terrorism is not over. We must continue to track down terrorists and bring them to justice. But the sense of purpose shown by the coalition in recent months gives cause for optimism that there is now a strong determination and a will to defeat terrorism in all parts of the world.

Clowning around in Afghanistan

AMERICANS love to see even the most complex of things very simplistically, in back and white, at least the ones with the lower IQ seem to think that way. Take the case of George W Bush who thinks that anyone who doesn’t support America in its ‘war against terrorism’ is against Washington, since there cannot by any grey areas in-between. That’s probably also why they seem to have this national obsession with abbreviating everything, breaking down everything that they need to say in the simplest form possible. Now, this can have its good and its bad points, the good being that talking and writing simple - and, most importantly, to the point - is something Pakistanis, especially those who are in the business of writing or talking, could really learn a thing or two about.

This habit of seeing things in black and white also trickles down to the ‘good guys-vs-the bad guys’ obsession that much of America seems to have. Unfortunately, the US media, especially a lot of the mainstream TV networks, one of whom is available in Pakistan, perpetuate this rather childish approach, probably in an attempt to gain better ratings by pandering to the lowest common denominator.

People who saw the coverage of what’s going on inside Afghanistan over Eid and the recent fighting in Tora Bora south of Jalalabad probably would not have missed Geraldo Rivera reporting for Fox News. Known better for his talk shows that would make even Jerry Springer look like a family show, Mr Rivera later rose to fame for his unabashed defence of the then President Clinton. As a result, he became the butt of many a joke from the Republicans and conservatives alike. So, it is quite ironic that he should be the main correspondent for a news network that prides itself on being distinct and separate from the other major US networks — CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC — which it says are too ‘liberal.’ And if you think the mainstream US media is liberal and then place yourself to their right then one can only imagine how right-wing and conservative Fox News must be.

Mr Rivera has done lots of silly things while he’s been in Afghanistan and many of his professional colleagues in Afghanistan and back home in the US have been quite embarrassed by his lack of professionalism. For example, take his recent reports on Osama bin Laden’s reported disappearance from Tora Bora and speculation on his whereabouts. Mr Rivera reported a couple of days before Eid weekend that according to his sources — who he kept repeating were extremely trustworthy and reliable, and had never proved him wrong — Osama had shaved off his beard, worn western clothes, and had been given sanctuary by a leading Pashtun tribal leader in Peshawar. And this is how he described Peshawar: “It’s a town in the semi-autonomous region of north-west Pakistan (pronounced in the typically annoying American twang) where the government has little control and where it’s easy to mingle with the local population.”

This gem was preceded a few days before by Mr Rivera reporting on a “friendly fire” incident that killed three American special forces soldiers and several anti-Taliban Afghan troops near Kandahar. He told viewers right after the incident that he had said the Lord’s Prayer over the “hallowed ground” where the “friendly fire took so many of our men and mujahideen yesterday”.

Later, he admitted that he had never visited the site, mainly because he says he got the place mixed up with another near Tora Bora - which is quite far from Kandahar — where a bombing run by US fighters killed Afghan soldiers looking for Osama and his men. However, Mr Rivera’s claim that he got the report mixed up with the other incident was later proved false when the US Defence Department said that the Tora Bora incident took place at least three days after Mr Rivera’s report was telecast.

According to David Folkenflik, writing in the Baltimore Sun on Dec 12, Rivera said that he was armed and would kill Osama himself if he got the chance. Well, so much for objectivity.

Rivera’s antics have also brought him much deserved ridicule on some of America’s (again, available on cable here) late night talks shows. In a reference to the now-famous sniper fire incident — yes, you guessed it — it had Mr Rivera ducking for cover as bullets whizzed past him somewhere near the Tora Bora caves and he said “I won’t say it parted my hair, but it was close”. Conan O’ Brien joked: “It seems those guys in Afghanistan finally recognized Rivera.” The even more popular Jay Leno alluded to this incident: “Did you guys hear about the incident where a bullet just missed Geraldo as he ducked for cover reporting from Tora Bora? Well, now we’ve heard that shoes with extra high heels are being sent for him.”

Tunku Varadarajan wrote in The Wall Street Journal on Dec 10: “Mr Rivera, who appears daily from the front line on Fox News programmes - pooping up like a tawdry jack-in-the-box on The O’Reilly Factor ... and every other news segment, it seems, morning, noon and night - has turned the war zone into a vast shrine to himself... We saw him again, days later, standing next to tanks atop a hill by Tora Bora, thought to be the hideout of Osama bin Laden. The anchor, Rita Cosby, presented him in a manner so worshipful that I was sure that she must be taking the mickey: “It’s perhaps the most dangerous place in the world, and you won’t find any journalist with the guts to stand their [sic] ground and get the story. That is, any journalist except Geraldo Rivera... Geraldo, how did you get there?” [And another time].... Bill O’Reilly says: “Have you felt any personal danger yourself? And who’s protecting you?” And Mr Rivera, who’s really the subject of the story - lest you thought, in a moment of stupidity, that it was about Afghanistan - reveals that he is carrying a gun, and that he is surrounded by “four, five, six armed guards.” Mr Rivera also has 20 porters, he has revealed on air, each paid “what amounts to a week’s wages for a night’s work.”

As for the sniper incident, what was quite surprising, as many have already pointed out, that the camera instead of panning to where the bullet might have come from kept focusing on Mr Rivera.

To counter growing criticism against him, Mr Rivera sounded off all his opponents in a recent 20-minute interview, referring to himself in the third person: “It’s time to stop bashing Geraldo. If you want to knife me in the back after all the courage I’ve displayed and serious reporting I’ve done, I’ve got no patience with this [expletive]. Have you ever been shot at? Have you ever covered a war?”

The New York Times columnist Frank Rich probably does as good a job as anyone in describing on CNN this network reporter-turned-talk show host-turned-syndicated talk show host-turned war correspondent: “I think he is a clown, basically. His stories, with clear-cut morality tales of ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ reflect Rivera’s self-aggrandizement. It’s not about patriotism or any thing else. It’s about him trying to basically have reflected glory from the American military.” — OMAR R QURAISHI

Who remembers Hafeez Jullundri now?

EVERY year when the 21st of December comes close, I think of the person who got a Latin reading student of the St Patrick’s School interested in Urdu poetry.

I first heard Hafeez Jullundri in 1935 when he had come to Karachi where my father, a friend of his, arranged a meeting for him in the Young Women’s Muslim Association hall. As a ten-year old, I also sneaked into the assembly with my mother who was an office-bearer of the association. There he recited some parts of his Shahnama-i-Islam and received healthy donations for its completion from many prominent ladies of the city including Lady Abdullah Haroon, Lady Ghulam Husain Hidayatullah, Mrs Justice Tayabji, Begum Haji Maula Buksh, mother of the present governor of Sindh, and others. Even at that age I was highly impressed by Hafeez Sahib.

Later, when I moved over to Lahore and started living in Model Town, a little distance away from Hafeez Sahib’s house, I wrote some verses and showed them to him. I now know what they were worth, yet he encouraged me. After correcting a few of my puerile attempts, he handed me over to his friend, Zaheer Shahabadi, who continued to guide me. As such, I can claim that Hafeez Sahib was my first ustad or, conversely, I happen to be a shagird of his. (I doubt if that goes to the credit of the great poet.)

I was sitting in the sun on Dec 21, 1982, when Munir Niazi and some other friends came to my house and asked why had I not come for the funeral of Hafeez Sahib. My answer was straight and candid. “I cannot see a person who was a terror in his lifetime lying so helplessly in his coffin.” I then asked whether it was all over. No, they said, there is some dispute about the location of his grave. His wife wanted him to be buried somewhere outside the Badshahi Masjid but eventually he was laid to rest in the Model Town graveyard as an amanat. Much later his remains were interred in the Iqbal Parks.

After Allama Iqbal, Hafeez Jallundri was the only poet who devoted himself to the renaissance of Muslims of the sub-continent and espoused their cause. In 1941, when I requested him to pen down something in my autograph book, he gave the advice:

Milayngay tumhein rah mein butkaday bhi

Magar apnay Allah ko yad rakhna.

Later, during a visit to England, he wrote a forceful poem, warning the Indian students living there to beware of the glitter of the West. I remember only two lines from it:

Apnay watan ke din raat niaray

Apnay watan mein sab kuchh heh piaray.

Rivalries among poets have been there all along but the Urdu-speaking poets of the time were aggressively against Hafeez Sahib. Josh Malihabadi went to the extent of making fun of his great work, Shahnama-i-Islam by saying:

Shahnama-i-Islam ke likhnay walay

Islam ko shahi say ta’alluq kia heh.

That amounted to completely ignoring his great effort. However, despite all the propaganda against him, Hafeez faced his adversaries with courage and refused to be cowed down. He towered over his contemporaries and forced them to recognize his merit. As he said himself:

Hafeez ahl-e-zaban kab mantay thay

Baray zoron say manvaya gaya hun.

A few years ago, while presiding over a function in remembrance of the late poet, the prominent na’at poet, Mr Justice Muhammad Ilyas, regretted that Hafeez Jallundri had not been accorded the honour he deserved. He said that the Shahnama was a historical, religious, national and literary document which needed official patronage and should be printed by the government on a large scale. He also advocated the establishment of Hafeez chairs in the universities.

Although Hafeez Sahib will always be remembered for being the author of our national anthem, I personally feel that what should earn him eternal benediction is the production of the most powerful salam ever written. Can there be any better tribute to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him)?

Salam ay Amina ke lal ay mahboob-i-subhani

Salam ay fakhr-i-maujudat fakhr-i-nau-i-insani.

The Pakistan Academy of Letters has observed Hafeez Sahib’s death anniversary more than once in the past. Perhaps the Eid festivities have eclipsed the event this time.

AZHAR Javed’s literary magazine, Takhleeq, now in its 37th year of publication, is getting healthier by the day. There is so much reading material in its December issue that one has to toss to decide which article or poem to read first. And then the editorial, Apni Baat, is astounding. With a searing fling in it on terrorism rampant in different parts of the world it pleasantly comes down to the ‘terrorism’ being perpetrated by the ‘super-powers’ of the literary world.

Although Persian is almost forgotten in the country these days, I, being an old timer, am still in love with it. As such, I was glad to see in this issue a write-up on the greatest mystical poet of the East, Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi. The writer, Zafar Azeem, has discussed the technical aspects of Rumi’s thought and his love for the sublime. He has elucidated his contentions with references to Shams-i-Tabriz, the person who brought a cataclysmic change in Rumi.

Incidentally, Rumi happens to be a best seller in the United States. Some time after 1994, Harper of San Francisco published a book, The Essential Rumi. It sold 110,000 copies in three years.

Other prose pieces in the issue are the article about the late Shohrat Bukhari by Ghulamus Saqlain Naqvi, part of a travelogue by Mustansar Husain Tarar, interesting as usual, and an assessment of Saba Akbarabadi’s ghazals by Jamil Jalibi. However, the detailed account by Dr Anwar Sadeed of all that was published by Takhleeq during 2000 shows how minutely and diligently he goes through the magazine and keeps a note of all that is worth noting.

The poetry section is loaded with top names but if I may be permitted to single out the poem which appealed to me that most, it is Mein ab kuchh bhi likh nahin sakti by Ghulam Jilani Asghar.