The real war aim in the Middle East

PRESIDENT George W. Bush has outlined his chilling vision for the Middle East to be pursued following the ouster or elimination of Saddam Hussein in a US-led invasion of Iraq. In essence, the US president is set to embark on a course of action whose ostensible aim is to spread the light of democracy across the Middle East through the barrel of the gun. The prime beneficiary, according to this blueprint, is likely to be the state of Israel. Although there has been widespread speculation about Washington’s larger aims following an attack, the contours of a concrete policy have been kept deliberately vague. The truth has been partially revealed in a speech by Colin Powell a couple of weeks ago and in the writings of certain figures close to the Bush administration. Powell had hinted that the attack on Iraq was a prelude to a much wider scheme of things designed to reshape the Middle East that would “enhance US interests” in the region. President Bush’s policy address to a right-wing think-tank in Washington on Thursday went a step further, offering an ambitious, and truly terrifying, picture of how the US intends to proceed following an attack on Iraq.

Some of the linkages made by Bush were indeed intriguing, pointing to the overwhelming influence of pro-Israeli ideologues on the Bush administration’s thinking. President Bush believes that the removal of Saddam Hussein could usher in a period of peace between the Arabs and Israel. It could also help encourage the Palestinians to change their leadership and reform their polity. With Saddam and the Palestinian leadership out of the way, the new leadership would automatically renounce the use of terror. By abandoning violence, the Palestinians would provide sufficient reason for the Israelis to agree to reopen peace negotiations, ultimately leading to the creation of a Palestinian state. This overly simplistic, and heavily one-sided, view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would be considered breathtakingly naive if it was not marked by such blatant cynicism.

Even more alarming is the recipe for bringing democracy to the Middle East. US forces in Iraq would remain in place for an indefinite period during which democratic reforms would be carried out and the Iraqis made to elect a leadership of their choice. The hapless Iraqis would not only be provided the essentials for survival, such as food and medicine, but also be given democracy lessons by the occupying US army. This in turn would help encourage the spread of democracy in the rest of the Middle East. The Bush vision seems to sanctify the option of military intervention as a mode of corrective action or enforcement wherever democracy is stubbornly resistant to outside encouragement. It is this missionary zeal to save the Middle East from itself that is supposed to provide a moral justification for a long-term occupation — something that is clearly warranted by less altruistic motives. Any attempt by an occupying army to bring democracy to the Arab world will clearly be seen both by Arab nationalists and Islamists as a cover for a new kind of colonialism and a new version of the Crusade against Islam and Muslims. Democracy is not something that can be foisted from above; it has to come from within societies themselves at a certain stage of their political development.

If the US goes ahead with its unilateral action against Iraq, it could open up a Pandora’s box, with a whole host of nations tempted to take similar action to further their aims. The world, especially the Muslim world, has a duty to fight back against this dangerous way of attempting to reorder the region and the world generally. Does the Muslim world really want to see the US entrench itself in the Middle East and turn it into its protectorate under the pretext of preaching and promoting democracy? All those opposed to this war must now stand up and be counted. Pakistan, which now happens to be a member of the Security Council, would do well to think deeply about this issue before casting what could be a crucial vote.

This is the time to add one’s own to the sane voices of France, Germany, Russia, China and the millions who have marched through the streets of the world opposing a unilateral war on Iraq. Posterity will be a harsh judge of those who go along with a policy that encourages a unilateral attack on Iraq and presages a long-term presence of the US in the region, armed with a dangerously ambitious agenda of its own. The Bush vision for the region promises only deep turmoil and disorder. The Muslim world must stop calculating what it will gain from backing such a vision and think beyond its narrow self interest. It is time to look reality starkly in the face and have the courage to say no before it is too late.

Terrorists strike again

YESTERDAY’S terrorist attack outside the US consulate in Karachi left two policemen dead and five injured, reminding the law enforcement agencies once again of the ever present and growing threat of terrorism and violence in the country. The city police claim to have arrested one of the assailants involved in the attack, which came within months of the more brutal attack at the same spot that left 12 persons dead as a car loaded with explosives rammed into the US consulate last June. The spate of violence targeting foreign missions and nationals, despite all the heavy security guarding them, should be a serious cause for concern to Karachi’s law enforcers. Last year also saw the killing of 11 French technicians outside a city hotel in May when another car bomb went off ripping through the bus meant to transport the Frenchmen. American journalist Daniel Pearl, too, fell victim to the wave of anti-US sentiments following the US attack on Afghanistan. While a number of arrests have been made by the city police in connection with these incidents of terrorism, the larger picture as to the identities and motives of those behind these attacks remains unclear.

The general law and order situation in Karachi with regard to terrorist attacks, be they against foreign targets or local ones, remains appalling. To add to the sense of insecurity, there was an attempt to blow up the president’s motorcade when he visited the city in April, which was luckily thwarted well in time and the culprits were apprehended. But the same cannot be said about the number of sectarian attacks, which included both targeted killings and sporadic acts of violence. The attack on a Christian NGO in the city was also part of the same trend of daring on the part of the terrorists, and betrays the impunity with which they strike a target as and when they choose to do so. Thursday’s killing of two people in a city cafe, and last week’s attack on an imambargah, were the latest cases in point. The prevalent sense of insecurity and the law enforcement agencies’ failure to go resolutely after the perpetrators and bring them to justice have forced many foreign missions in the city to cut the strength of their staff in their respective offices. It is time the authorities woke up and acted more diligently in curbing the growing threat of terrorism and violence, which, given the regional situation with regard to the Iraq crisis, is likely to mount in the coming days, weeks and months.