‘American abuse is making the world a more dangerous place’
Q: What is the purpose of your visit to Pakistan, especially with reference to Mr Paracha’s case?
A: I’m here to ask the Pakistani government to do justice for Mr Paracha, to tell the American government that it is not okay to hold a citizen of Pakistan like this in abusive conditions with no chance to defend himself. It’s critical that the Pakistani government works on behalf of its citizens around the world who are being abused and being put in situations like this. It’s really about politics. Guantanamo Bay will end, the suffering for Mr Paracha will end when the Pakistani government intervenes on his behalf and says to its ally America: ‘this has to stop.’
Q: I believe the issue here is not of Mr Paracha’s guilt, but that he’s been denied access to due process.
A: I’d say yes. The first and foremost issue for every prisoner in Guantanamo Bay is the fact that they’re being held like this, without an opportunity for a day in court. I think any one of us … if we were accused of a crime or were alleged to have done something against the law, we’d want an opportunity to defend ourselves. Let the government have its say. But at some point, we need to be able to say, ‘look, this is my side of the story.’ Then let somebody neutral decide. Let a judge decide.
If someone has done something wrong and there’s proof against him, they should be punished. The problem with Guantanamo is that there is no opportunity for that. There’s never a chance to go for a fair and open court.
Mr Paracha has actually been found by American investigators and indeed by Pakistani officials who’ve been to Guantanamo Bay … all of them agree that he is not involved in terrorism. Mr Paracha is not involved with al-Qaeda, he was not involved with the Taliban in any way in any terrorist activities. He really, truly is somebody who should not be in prison today.
But unfortunately, it remains politics that’s going to get him out. We’ve brought cases for him in United States courts; they are stalled. The judges have not taken correct action, in my mind. We really need the Pakistani government to do the right thing and demand he returns home from America.
A: The US, unfortunately, at this point has only itself to blame for the perceptions people have of it. It is the US that is abusing human rights. It is the US that’s ignoring the law or indeed trying to say it is above the law. That it can do whatever it wants … forget about American law, forget about international law. It can do whatever it thinks is the right thing.
That’s not how the world works. That’s not how a democracy is supposed to work. That’s not how somebody who speaks about human rights is supposed to act.
America today is a hypocrite. It talks about democracy and freedom and justice. It says one thing and does completely the opposite. So if people are now angry with the US or have a bad impression of it, who’s to blame? It’s America, it’s President Bush. It’s the policies they’re implementing. It has to stop.
Q: Are there other individuals or organizations in the US raising their voices for Mr Paracha and similar cases?
A: For Mr Paracha, there are other lawyers I work with in the US who are doing this voluntarily, as am I, and who have spoken out on his behalf who are working on his legal case as well. There are also hundreds of lawyers – American lawyers – who’ve been working on behalf of the prisoners in Guantanamo. All the lawyers believe what’s being done there is absolutely against the law. You can’t hold somebody for years and years without charge, without trial like this. It’s completely un-American.
It’s actually people from across the political spectrum. It’s liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans who’ve joined together on this issue because they believe, first of all, that it’s against American law. But also, almost all of them believe that it’s making the world a more dangerous place. These policies are a lightening rod that infuriates people when they hear about this abuse that America is perpetrating. It makes people angry and unfortunately makes people violent.
Q: On a more personal note, have you drawn much flak in the US for advocating the case of a so-called ‘terrorist?’
A: It’s interesting. First of all, my government has not done anything to me at all. I think this is actually a wonderful thing about the US. I am free to speak up. I am free to criticize the government. I have not had any personal repercussions. There are definitely people inside the US – just average folks – who disagree with me. I live in England and actually, most of the venom that I’ve gotten is from British people.
I’ve worked on the cases of British residents and my office helped secure the freedom of some of those prisoners. When three of our clients came home to Britain in December 2007, shortly thereafter I received an email that said: ‘the next time a bomb goes off in Britain, I hope that it’s you and your family that are on top of it because you have helped bring al-Qaeda into England. And you will have blood on your hands.’
This is the sort of response I get, not from a government, but from an average ignorant person who never looked into the case of those particular men, who believed the propaganda that had come out from the US.
Q: Anything else you’d like to add?
A: There are many issues here in Pakistan today that are grabbing attention. This is one person among many. But it’s really at the heart of the relationship between Pakistan and the US. That relationship defines nearly everything that is happening in this country. America needs Pakistan right now. There’s no question about it. That’s why the US is sending so much money to Pakistan, that’s why American officials come here all the time. Pakistan needs to remember that. It has leverage with America. They need to use it to secure justice for Mr Paracha and other Pakistani citizens. They need to use it so that people in Pakistan are helped and not hurt by American policies.
Osama’s terror not Jihad, says scholar
Niaz A. Shah whose first book, Women, the Koran and International Human Rights Law, was discussed in this column last year, has, in his second extensively researched book, Self-Defence in Islamic and International Law — Assessing Al-Qaeda and the Invasion of Iraq published recently by Macmillan, has projected the unlikely scenario of Muslim countries declaring formal, legal and rightful Jihad against the American coalition if its occupation of Muslim lands continues under the war on terror pretext. He holds that this defensive Jihad, unlike Al-Qaeda’s, will be according to both the Quranic and international laws of self-defence, which he argues to be legally compatible.
Focused on and relevant to the present situation as the Neocons march out defeated in their aims and belied in their claims, Shah’s thesis rests on the argument that the Islamic concept of defensive Jihad, which he discusses in the light of Quranic injunctions, must not be allowed to be hijacked and used as a tool of terror and violence, and the right of self-defence under international law must not be stretched to a breaking point where the defender becomes the aggressor. Terrorism must be defeated, he emphasises, but only within the boundaries of law, both nationally and internationally.
Shah makes a comparative analysis of the right to self- defence in Islamic and international laws to see if the two are compatible, and whether Al-Qaeda’s declaration of Jihad is Islamic, and whether the US-led Iraq campaign violates international law. To understand the first, the concept of Jihad and its two main interpretations — defensive and offensive — are explained and applied to the case of Al-Qaeda, testing its justification for declaring Jihad against the occupation forces; and to understand the second, the Charter of the United Nations is analysed and applied to the claim of self-defence about the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Shah finds both the claims to be illegal — Al-Qaeda’s from the Quranic point of view and the Coalition’s from the International law’s.
Shah looks at the concept of self-defence both theoretically as well as in its application on ground by the terror organisations and the front of the ‘war on terror’ countries. There is exhaustive discussion of what the Islamic law has to say about the concept and how this is interpreted by Al-Qaeda using the argument of disproportionality for its terror politics. The book then goes into how international law subscribes to self- defence of nations and in that context tries to establish the illegality of the Iraq invasion. Proportional response and pre- emptive action by a super power are given a dispassionate treatment to show how from the point of view of the Islamic and international laws both contenders are engaged in an illegal combat. The Quran permits necessary and proportionate use of force in self-defence which is what defensive Jihad is. But no non-state actor has the right to make a proclamation of this kind. The actions of Osama Bin Laden are therefore illegal and unIslamic. On the other hand Shah holds aggressive Jihad (the offensive theory of Jihad in his words) to spread the message of Islam to be unfounded and conflicting with fundamental principles of the Quran such as freedom of religion and neutrality. He also debunks the concepts of Daral Islam and Daral Harab outside the Quran’s consistent and clearly stated position on the states of neutrality, peace and war. Shah states that though Bin Laden’s position has little legitimacy in the eyes of the general Muslim populace, the disproportionate response of the war on terror and the continued occupation of Muslim lands for purposes other than fighting terrorism could one day lead to consensus among Muslim countries in favour of religiously and internationally permissible defensive Jihad.
It is not conceivable that Muslim countries in their present and foreseeable state will think of making such a move unless extremists seize control of state apparatus in some country. In that event the war on terror would not feel shy of turning its guns on such a recognisable target. But it is to be hoped that the occupation would not last long though it may linger a little bit more till the obfuscation of its aims becomes more complete and while this happens extremists too learn at a cost the futility of the terror enterprise. Shah lays much store by the international community’s ability to meet the challenge. The Security Council has to play an effective role in rejecting the doctrine of preemption as a safe option in dealing with threats to peace.
Shah questions the sincerity of Anglo-American insistence on democratising Muslim societies as in practice the combine has mostly been found on the wrong side of the claims, supporting kings and dictators and toppling elected governments and rejecting electoral victories of their opponents. He wants democracy to come through democratic means and addressing extremism through measures that penetrate through the religious veneer to reach down to the actual causes. Niaz Shah is our local boy from Swabi who has made it good abroad. His present and previous book has created intellectual space for dispassionate discussion of issues that at home tend to be dragged into sensitive religious terrain and abroad face the arrogance of a victorious culture that insists on its single narrative. Shah’s method of drawing parallells between systems of thought and exposing the commonalities disarms the biased mind. He further extends that intellectual space by eschewing rhetoric and keeping his ideas on a rational plane. We do not have many scholars of such sober understanding and liberal stature.
Men in mufti forget their days in khaki
IT IS quite amusing to watch retired Generals turn into born again democrats. What an irony that those who had been closely associated with military regimes in the past now champion the cause of democracy and civil rights. It is nauseating to see those pontificating on rule of law who themselves had trampled the constitution and conspired against elected governments. One wonders whether it is awakening of their conscience or an attempt to cover up their own misdeeds.
It is certainly not the love of democracy but their own agenda that has prompted them to jump on to the bandwagon. It is what one friend termed retired radicalisation syndrome which now we see in plenty among ex-generals. They know well how to manipulate public opinion through an increasingly powerful electronic media.
Most of these retired officers, now gathered under the banner of Ex-Servicemen Society, represent General Zia’s legacy and are trying to exploit the popular anti Musharraf sentiment to achieve their own objectives. While demanding the impeachment of President Musharraf, should they also not present themselves for trial or at least apologise to the nation for their own deeds?
It is appalling to see likes of General Faiz Ali Chishti, a key leader of General Zia’s 1977 military coup, now becoming the standard bearers of civil liberty. What does he have to say about his role in the most brutal military rule and in execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Then there are likes of General Aslam Beg and General Hamid Gul whose role in subverting the democratic process is more than evident. People may not have forgotten “Operation Jackal”, a plot by the ISI to destabilise Benazir Bhutto’s first government in 1990.
Lt-Gen Asad Durrani, a former head of the ISI and now an active member of the Society, had confessed having distributed millions of rupees among the politicians being favoured by the military establishment in the 1990 elections. Should these Generals not be held accountable for those actions?
It was interesting to watch Lt-Gen (retd) Gulzar Kiani’s interview on a private TV channel the other day, castigating his old boss for the military’s misadventure in Kargil and for his pro-US policies. He even suggested that Musharraf be tried for treason.
General Kiani was an important member of the military junta which seized power deposing an elected government in 1999. Number two in the ISI, he was appointed commander of the key 10th corps immediately after the coup, making him a crucial member of the military regime until his retirement in 2003-4.
One wonders why it took him so long to speak out. He even accepted the coveted job of chairman Federal Public Commission before he fell out with his chief. It seems less about the truth than getting even with Musharraf who he had served loyally for so many years. How did he find the courage now when Musharraf is down, and not when he was all powerful? There is no dispute that the Kargil misadventure had disastrous consequences and a commission be set up to ascertain responsibility for the fiasco. But the General should also have the moral courage to accept his own culpability.
In General Kiani’s more than hour-long harangue, there was no atonement of his own role in strengthening Musharraf’s military rule. Many people still remember the role of 10th corps in manipulating the local government elections in 2000. Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, the former federal minister, could tell more about how he was summoned to the corps headquarters and forced to step down as a candidate for Rawalpindi Nazim in favour of Tariq Kiani, believed to be a member of General’s clan. Sheikh Rashid had not shifted his loyalty to the military regime until then.
It is true that General Kiani was one of the corps commanders who opposed the turnaround in Pakistan policy of supporting Taliban government in the aftermath of 9/11. During his tenure as ISI’s director of operations he was responsible for helping the conservative Taliban government in Afghanistan and supporting the militant struggle in Kashmir, which explains his hardline position.
But like many others of his kind, General Kiani did not have clear answer to what other option Pakistan had after 9/11 terrorists attacks. Could Pakistan have continued to support the Taliban government in defiance of the international community and UN Security Council resolutions? The policy of supporting the Taliban regime had not only isolated Pakistan, but carried a huge consequence for the country. The rise of militancy which now threatens Pakistans own security has been largely the result of the policy which the military pursued over more than two decades. Should Pakistan revert to old policy of supporting militancy and endanger its own security even further?