The congressional report

THE US congressional report on the events of 9/11 is largely concerned with whether and how the traumatic hijackings could have been visualized or prevented. It does not deal either with the causes that could have precipitated the terrorist action or with the consequences that have followed — consequences which the world has been realizing to its cost almost every day since then. Given its narrow focus, the report’s impact will largely be domestic, and Americans will demand a very close look indeed at the working of their official intelligence agencies that have been blamed for ignoring many warning signs. There were, the report says, “various threads and pieces of information that, at least, in retrospect are both relevant and significant”. US intelligence agencies are specifically criticized for ignoring or not following through on reports that Osama bin Laden’s followers planned to hijack aircraft in the United States. The mystery of how the presumed hijackers were so easily able to exploit the American system to damage it remains unclear.

The Bush White House had initially resisted the idea of a congressional inquiry into 9/11 and agreed only when its attack on Afghanistan and the displacement of the Taliban regime there had put America into a suitably patriotic mode and when the Democrats had been forced into silence. An atmosphere of jingoism was created where questioning any of the administration’s actions was considered close to sedition. The report is based on a joint inquiry conducted by the intelligence committees of the two houses of Congress, and the inquiry itself appeared to avoid going too deeply into the political ramifications of why the US has so often been a target of terrorist or violent actions. Some of the demons that now haunt America are products of its own intelligence agencies, and the religious militancy that is now America’s greatest worry was encouraged and tolerated by successive US administrations as a countervailing force to left, non-aligned and liberal tendencies in many regions and countries. This paradox is best underlined in the current state of relations between the US and Saudi Arabia. Some 28 of the Congressional report’s 900 pages have not been released to the public: these suppressed portions reportedly deal with a perceived Saudi connection with the hijackings. The innuendoes leaked to the press have been vehemently denied by the Saudi government.

One of the most striking features of the report is its categorical finding that there was no link between Al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein regime. Thus, after the bogey of weapons of mass destruction, another of the reasons cited by the Bush administration for launching an attack on a sovereign country has been effectively proved to be false. The credibility of both President George W. Bush and his ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, has received a fresh blow. Mr Blair is facing his own inquisition, especially in view of the circumstances leading to the tragic death of Dr David Kelly. Obviously, the US report’s conclusions with regard to the Saddam-Al Qaeda link will add to the pressure on the British premier. Given Britain’s parliamentary system, Mr Blair is, immediately, far more vulnerable than Mr Bush, who can bully and blunder his way through till the presidential elections next year.

Easing the debt burden

IN what is a highly welcome move Pakistan plans to reduce its costly multilateral debt by about a billion dollars this year. This would be in addition to the normal amortization of $2.5 to $3 billion that the government is obliged to make to meet its overall annual debt servicing commitment. According to Federal Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz this additional repayment of one billion dollars during the year will not cause any adverse impact on Pakistan’s foreign exchange reserves — now a record $11 billion. At the moment Pakistan is facing an overall foreign debt burden of $34.5 billion. About $12.5 billion of this is bilateral debt, rescheduled under a highly generous Paris Club agreement of December 2001. The rest of the debt — about $22 billion — is said to be mostly multilateral, plus a couple of billion dollars of commercial loans. Most of the multilateral debt is concessional, except an amount of $4.5 billion which is said to carry a very high average annual interest rate of about 11 per cent. It is this part of the multilateral debt that the government is planning to reduce gradually. In the late 1990s the annual average debt servicing burden on Pakistan had risen to $6-7 billion. However, after the Paris Club rescheduling and repayment of some costly commercial loans this burden has come down to an annual average amount of $2.5 billion. It is expected that by the time the balance of the costly multilateral debt is eliminated completely in a couple of years, Pakistan’s annual debt servicing would decline further to about a billion or so dollars, creating the financial room and the political sinews to enable the government to access stringless foreign loans at better terms.

Borrowing is not a bad thing, if it is done to promote growth, development and resource-generating activities. Even the rich countries borrow regularly for this purpose. In the past, however, Pakistan wasted most of its borrowed resources on non-development expenditure, largely on purchasing arms which soon become obsolete, creating a never-ending cycle of waste. Pakistan does need to maintain a well-oiled and efficient security machine but not at the expense of its economic policy.

Israeli prayer ban

THE Israeli decision to ban Palestinian males under 40 from praying at the Al-Aqsa mosque is another proof, if proof was needed, of the Zionist state’s religious bigotry. Since most Palestinians are young, the Israeli decision means that a majority of regular worshippers will not be able to discharge this fundamental obligation of the Islamic faith at the mosque of their choice. The Israeli ban comes in the wake of possible protests by Muslims against the occupation authorities’ decision to allow Israeli and foreign tourists into the Islamic holy sites. The protest is justified in the sense that the Al-Aqsa mosque and the entire sanctuary, including the Dome of the Rock, have a unique position in the world.

The site is holy to all the three monotheistic faiths — Islam, Christianity and Judaism. For that reason, peoples of all these three faiths have every right to have unhindered access to these shrines for prayers and pilgrimage. However, exactly for that very reason, the entire Al-Aqsa sanctuary cannot be treated like any other place of tourist interest. What hurt Muslim Palestinians in the past was the disrespect that was often shown to these places by Israeli nationals and western tourists, especially where the dress of the female tourists was concerned. Often, western and Israeli couples took photographs and walked hand in hand in a way that was offensive to Muslims and did not conform to the norms of conduct in a holy place like the Al-Aqsa complex. Muslims throughout the world pay special attention to these considerations and resent their violations by others. The Israeli decision could touch off a new round of resistance by the Palestinians. It is time the Bush administration woke up and had the Israeli decision reversed if it does not want its April 30 roadmap to fall victim to another round of bloodletting.