[sacw] SACW #2. (02 Oct. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #2.
02 October 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

------------------------------------------

#1. Battle Hymn of The Republic ( Partha Chatterjee)
#2. The Mullah is laughing (M.J. Akbar)
#3. Unless the US is restrained by an international body like the=20
Security Council, it may rain wanton destruction upon Afghanistan=20
(Praful Bidwai)

________________________

#1.

The Telegraph (India)
2 October 2001

BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC

BY PARTHA CHATTERJEE

Let me say at the outset that I consider the attacks carried out in=20
this city on September 11 as heinous and barbaric. I am not one of=20
those who proclaim political non-violence. As a student of politics=20
in colonial and postcolonial countries, I have become convinced that=20
when the structures of domination in the modern world are so deeply=20
rooted in the ability to deploy massive and efficient violence, it is=20
neither possible nor justified to insist that those who fight against=20
unfair domination must at all times eschew the use of political=20
violence. But I know of no anti-imperialist or anti-colonial politics=20
that will justify the killing of more than five thousand ordinary men=20
and women in a deliberate act of violence against a civilian target.

Even if, by some contorted political logic, one were to think that=20
one was at war with the United States, it would be a hard act to=20
justify, even as an act of war. I believe that such deliberate and=20
calculated acts of massive terror have emerged out of a politics and=20
an ideology that are fundamentally mistaken and that must be rejected=20
and condemned. Such ideologies of religious or ethnic fanaticism are=20
widespread today and they are by no means restricted to any one=20
religious community. I am one of those who argue that we must=20
sympathetically understand the reasons why so many people all over=20
the world are persuaded by such ideologies of fanaticism. However,=20
that is not to say that we must sympathize with or endorse their=20
politics.

Having said that, let me turn to the question of the response to=20
these acts of terror. Within hours of the event, the US president=20
announced that his country was at war. Immediately, the analogy was=20
being drawn to Pearl Harbour. Not since World War II, we were told,=20
had America been attacked in this way. I have been asking ever since,=20
why was it necessary to make that announcement? How was the=20
determination made so quickly? Was it because war is such a familiar=20
trope in the public memory of Western countries?

>From fiction to history books to the cinema, there are innumerable=20
sources of popular culture in the West that have taught people what=20
war means and what one ought to do when one's country goes to war. We=20
saw it in this country last week when people flew the flag, lined up=20
to donate blood or sang the Battle Hymn of the Republic in memorial=20
services in church. An unprecedented act of violence was made=20
comprehensible by framing it as an act of war. Perhaps George W.=20
Bush, inexperienced in the affairs of state, was closer to the=20
popular understanding than the seasoned veterans of the state=20
department when he said that he wanted Osama bin Laden "dead or=20
alive". Revenge and retaliation are also familiar sentiments of war.=20
So when President Bush said, albeit within his somewhat limited=20
political vocabulary, that he would "smoke 'em out and hunt 'em=20
down", he was using a rhetoric long familiar in the American national=20
language of warfare.

It is now clear that by declaring a war so quickly, the US=20
decision-makers have found themselves pushed into a corner from which=20
they are having a hard time getting out. Three weeks after the=20
attack, there has been no visible military response. Experts are=20
trying to tell people that this is not a conventional enemy; it has=20
no country, no territory, no borders. There are no obvious targets=20
that could be attacked. It could take a long time to build an=20
international coalition and strike effectively at the enemy.

This is not a war against a country or a people. It is a war against=20
terrorism. But having been told that this was a war, the people are=20
dismayed by the lack of any recognizable response. There is a virtual=20
volcano of rage and frustration that has built up in this country.=20
The people are in no mood for metaphorical wars. They are, if I may=20
use some plain language too, baying for blood.

In the absence of a clear enemy or target, the rhetoric is frequently=20
slipping into unconcealed religious, ethnic and cultural hatred. And=20
it is not merely rhetoric either, because there have been attacks on=20
mosques and temples, assaults on foreign-looking men and women and at=20
least two killings. Senior leaders, including the president, have=20
attempted to reassure Arab-Americans that their safety will not be=20
jeopardized. And yet the rhetoric of cultural intolerance continues.

Responsible leaders speak on radio and television of what must be=20
done with the uncivilized parts of the world, of keeping a close=20
watch on neighbours with Arabic names and of people who wear diapers=20
around their heads. They speak of "ending" states like Afghanistan,=20
Iraq, Syria, Libya and "finishing off" Islamic militants in Lebanon=20
and Palestine. If this is how the elite speaks, can we blame ordinary=20
people for making sense of this war as a conflict of civilizations?

We can and should, I think, ask questions about responsibility and=20
accountability. If the war on terrorism is a war unlike any other=20
this country has fought, as we are now being told, that should have=20
been clear from the first day. Why then mislead everyone by invoking=20
the familiar language of retaliation against enemy countries and=20
enemy peoples? If the US is indeed the only superpower in a new world=20
without borders, the cultural resources of traditional war will be=20
singularly inadequate and inappropriate for that new imperial role.

Has the leadership acted responsibly in preparing both itself and the=20
country for such a role? I do not think so. We see and hear all=20
around us the signs and languages of traditional American=20
nationalism, unmindful even of the fact that the patterns of=20
immigration into this country in the last few decades have been so=20
vastly different from those of previous decades.

There is another huge question of responsibility concerning America's=20
role in the rest of the world. Given its overwhelming military and=20
economic dominance, every action by the US in any part of the world=20
cannot but have enormous repercussions on those states and societies.=20
Has America acted responsibly in weighing the long-term, and often=20
unintended, consequences of its actions? I will not speak here of=20
west Asia, for instance, where American policy has had enormous=20
historical impact; there are others who are more qualified than me to=20
speak on that subject.

Let me speak of Afghanistan where, in the early Eighties, the US=20
fought a long proxy war against the Soviet Union. It is said to have=20
been the biggest Central Intelligence Agency operation in history.=20
The US - in collaboration with the military regime in Pakistan and=20
the retrograde conservative monarchy of Saudi Arabia - organized,=20
trained, funded and armed the Afghan militants, encouraged their=20
Islamic ideology and applauded when they successfully drove out the=20
Soviet troops. I heard Zbigniew Brzezinski, a familiar figure in the=20
corridors of Columbia University, say on television last night that=20
when the last Soviet soldiers crossed the Amu Daria back into the=20
Soviet Union, he felt very very good. He also said that he would have=20
felt even better had he known at the time that that would be the=20
beginning of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I don't suppose he even thought for a moment the disastrous=20
consequences the American involvement would have on the region. The=20
taliban was born in the Eighties in the mujahedin camps in Pakistan.=20
Osama bin Laden became a hero of Islamic militancy at that time. The=20
Pakistani army itself became deeply afflicted by the ideology of=20
Islamic fanaticism. The results are now there for all to see. Has the=20
US ever accepted that it has some responsibility for what was done to=20
the region and what the region is now doing to the rest of the world?

The question should be asked today when battleships, bombers and=20
commando units are taking up positions for military operations. Is=20
anyone thinking what might be the consequences for Afghanistan of=20
another deadly war? We heard the other day that the council of ulema=20
has recommended that Osama bin Laden be asked to voluntarily leave=20
Afghanistan. There is only one conclusion to be drawn from this. The=20
religious leaders are terrified of what might become of their country=20
and people if the US chooses to attack. And what about the=20
consequences for Pakistan where a reluctant army, the only organized=20
institution of the state, is being forced to lay the ground for an=20
American invasion? What about the consequences for all of south Asia=20
where there are two countries with nuclear weapons and a political=20
atmosphere seething with religious and sectarian conflict?

Like it or not, comprehend it or not, the US is today the world's=20
only imperial power. As such, everything it does has consequences for=20
the world as a whole. It is not only the collateral damage of=20
military action that American defence analysts must think of.=20
American leaders must also necessarily think of the collateral damage=20
they do to the history of societies and peoples all over the world.=20
If the US is the world's only superpower, it must be responsible for=20
its actions to the people of the whole world, not to some mythical=20
international coalition hurriedly and cynically put together, but to=20
countries and people - yes, ordinary and innocent people - who suffer=20
the consequences of its actions.

I am not persuaded that either the American leadership or the=20
American people are aware of the enormous moral responsibility=20
contemporary history has put on them. In the aftermath of the attacks=20
on the World Trade Center, President Bush could only think of the=20
"Wanted" poster he had seen in Western movies. While the whole world=20
is looking for an American policy that is flexible, sensitive,=20
attuned to the enormous changes that have taken place in the world in=20
the last decade or so, what we will probably get is more of the=20
familiar American arrogance, bludgeoning and insensitivity. Perhaps,=20
sadly, the first war of the twenty first century will end up no=20
differently from the many wars of the twentieth.

The author is director, Centre for Studies in Social Sciences,=20
Calcutta and visiting professor, Columbia University. This is the=20
text of a lecture delivered in a meeting in Columbia University

_______

#2.

The Daily Star
2 October 2001

The Mullah is laughing

M.J. Akbar
There is no doubt that the central issue of the present crisis is=20
terrorism and its elimination is the core purpose of every move. But=20
there is growing doubt about the ability to achieve that purpose.=20
Part of the doubt arises from the wavering resolve of the nation that=20
was provoked, the United States. Then there is the problem of=20
incomprehension: what precisely is in store for this region from=20
Central Asia to the eastern borders of Bangladesh?

IF I were Mullah Omar I would be laughing all the way to the mosque=20
right now. What began as an Armageddon, or at least a crusade,=20
launched with a Bush-fire zealous enough to singe millions of=20
television sets across the globe, has become a silent skirmish within=20
three weeks. It could of course be the most expensive skirmish in the=20
history of warfare, but that is the way of Washington.

On 12 September, after he had recovered from the shock of hiding in=20
his own country, President George Bush sounded as if he had=20
recognised the one error that haunted his father's strategy towards=20
Iraq, the fact that George Bush the Elder did not confirm his=20
military victory with a change of government in Baghdad. Bush the=20
Younger was searching for the source of terrorism, the infrastructure=20
that protected and trained those who spoke with guns, and demanded=20
that any government that protected an Osama bin Laden was as guilty=20
as the hijackers who flew airliners into the Pentagon and the twin=20
towers of Manhattan. We forgot, in the tumult of that oratory, that=20
the team that surrounds Bush the Younger is essentially the same as=20
the one that advised Bush the Elder: Colin Powell, Dick Cheney,=20
Donald Rumsfeld. The designations may have changed but the men are=20
the same.

It is possible that the next fortnight could prove me wrong, but it=20
already seems that, ten years later, these men have no stomach for an=20
American war. They want victory without collateral. They want a proxy=20
war that can only end with the illusion of success. Having, in the=20
anger of the first phase, committed themselves to an objective that=20
demands sacrifice, they are now ready to settle for a political=20
victory instead of any real solution. They want one man now, not the=20
system that makes that man effective. The war has become a hunt, by=20
special forces using sophisticated intelligence to scour the terrain=20
inside Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden.

We should have expected this dilution of American will. Because=20
Afghanistan is really part of America's domestic agenda, rather than=20
an international crisis. This holds equally true for Pakistan and=20
India. The politics and policies of all three countries are being=20
determined by how much this problem can serve their domestic=20
interests and how the three governments can further their specific=20
interests through this crisis.

The world has never quite known what to do about the Taliban.=20
Pakistan helped create it, so established a lonely vested interest.=20
The United Arab Emirates placed an ambassador out of self-protective=20
instincts; and Saudi Arabia to show solidarity with a government that=20
was avowedly Islamic in its claims. The rest of the world ignored=20
something it could do nothing about. I was as aghast as anyone else=20
at the images that strained the imagination on 11 September. But far=20
more horrifying than what the Taliban has done to America is what the=20
Taliban has done to its own people, to Afghanistan. For more than=20
half a decade now the women of Afghanistan have lived through=20
degradation and terror that must shame all nations in principle and=20
Muslim nations in particular, for the word that the Holy Quran uses=20
for women is reverence. Surely believing Muslims do not need to be=20
told about the fourth Surah of the Quran, Al Nisa, whose principles=20
govern their personal law. The opening verse establishes the first=20
principle: "O mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord who created you=20
from a single person, created, of like nature, his mate, and from=20
them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women. Fear=20
Allah, through Whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence)=20
the wombs (that bore you): for Allah ever watches over you" (from the=20
translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali).

Is this what the Taliban has done since it came to power? Shown=20
reverence to women? Instead it has brutalised women with a particular=20
venom that has been recorded on film and in print, as and when=20
possible in a closed and terrorised country. The Taliban social=20
philosophy has destroyed education, eliminated (physically) civil=20
society and devastated the country. The worst terror of this regime=20
has been reserved for its own people. Who cared? No one. Washington=20
itself, prodded by Islamabad, had begun the process of legitimising=20
the Taliban in a quiet, incremental manner, a fact that the State=20
Department will not easily accept just now. Washington understood the=20
Taliban only when the Taliban reached New York and Washington.

The United States has, with less subtlety than it thinks, changed its=20
policy. Its war aim has narrowed down to a single point: the hunt for=20
Osama bin Laden. (Incidentally, much-encouraged myths about him do=20
not add to the cause of credibility. He does not have three hundred=20
million dollars. For him to inherit that much his father would have=20
had to leave six billion dollars in his will, and that sort of money=20
he did not have. It did not really exist before oil. And the Afghan=20
resistance to the Soviet Union did not really need the Laden=20
millions; the CIA had enough. In any case this money-hype misses the=20
point. Those who go out to die do not need bank accounts.) President=20
Bush presumably feels that a dramatic capture of bin Laden by special=20
units of American and British armies will satisfy the domestic=20
audience, after which the boys can fly back home and warships go back=20
to their bases. The Taliban could stay in Kabul. The only difference=20
would be that the Northern Alliance would be offered a supply line to=20
reenergise a confrontation of many years. This was precisely the=20
policy created by the Cheneys and Powells in Iraq and it ended in the=20
mass sacrifice of Kurds, among other tragedies. Recent photographs of=20
Northern Alliance troops clearly show that the American dollar has=20
made a dramatic comeback in their lives. They are riding motorbikes,=20
wearing new boots and Nike socks. They look like happy soldiers.

The Pakistan administration's agenda is much clearer and more=20
difficult. It has already won a signal victory by persuading=20
Washington to soften its line against the Taliban. Pakistan would not=20
want to lose an asset it created over the years in a country critical=20
to its interests. It is axiomatic that any government other than the=20
Taliban would be more hostile to Islamabad. The second, or maybe the=20
first, imperative in Islamabad is survival of the old-fashioned kind.=20
Stay alive, and stay in power. President Pervez Musharraf was poorly=20
advised when he decided to televise his tension, but the comparative=20
calm since then could prove deceptive. The real problems for the=20
Pakistan government will come if the Americans are unable to storm=20
the Laden hideout and pick him, or if Mullah Omar rejects the=20
compromise being suggested by soft-liners in the Taliban who do not=20
want their movement to become hostage to a single individual. This=20
would mean real problems for the Bush team as well, forcing them into=20
a battle they do not want. Reluctant armies rarely win. So far the=20
pro-Taliban sentiment in Pakistan has been less farspread than the=20
pictures of American flags burning would suggest, but real shooting=20
could trigger real passions.

The government in Delhi had one obvious motive; that whatever=20
scenario emerged after the dust settled, the world should do enough=20
to eliminate the use of terror from the region. But this would have=20
to be a reasonable and regional package, rather than a unilateral=20
one, and therefore a policy that the world could support.

But the Vajpayee government stopped thinking and retreated, hugging=20
itself, into a political marsh called Uttar Pradesh. When you begin=20
life as a single-agenda party, you always return to that agenda at=20
the first glimpse of defeat. The BJP's visionaries are trying to=20
reach Lucknow via Kabul. Anyone with a compass could have told them=20
that this is an improbable route, but try arguing with the convinced.=20
The Taliban has been converted into a UP election issue. The ban on=20
SIMI, an organisation of Muslim students, may have some justification=20
on its side, but the timing makes it nothing but a blatant effort to=20
demonise Muslims before the UP elections. This government has been in=20
power for three years; its evidence against SIMI could not have been=20
collected only in the last three weeks. If the charge is fomenting=20
violence then organisations like the Bajrang Dal deserve similar=20
action. Militant groups of this kind have been publicly and proudly=20
offering small-arms training to their cadres. Why are they doing=20
this? To fight militants in the Kashmir Valley? The irony is that in=20
February next year, or whenever the BJP government chooses to hold=20
elections, the Prime Minister and his home minister will discover=20
that the electorate is immune to such exploitation.

The Afghan crisis offered a chance to Delhi to formulate a genuine=20
South Asia policy and then to obtain support for it from both within=20
the subcontinent and the wider world. Every war provides an=20
opportunity for potential peace. War itself is fought in the search=20
for another order from which something unacceptable has been=20
eliminated. There is no doubt that the central issue of the present=20
crisis is terrorism and its elimination is the core purpose of every=20
move. But there is growing doubt about the ability to achieve that=20
purpose. Part of the doubt arises from the wavering resolve of the=20
nation that was provoked, the United States. Then there is the=20
problem of incomprehension: what precisely is in store for this=20
region from Central Asia to the eastern borders of Bangladesh? These=20
two questions are only the beginning of a long and difficult list.=20
The answers demand some serious thinking, and minds have become too=20
narrow for any thought at all.

Unless I am proved wrong in the coming week, it is a world in which=20
Mullah Omar can afford to laugh.

M J Akbar is Chief Editor of the Asian Age

_______

#3.

Frontline (India),
September 28 - October 12, 2001
Frontline Column: Beyond the Obvious

Praful Bidwai

Follies compounded

Unless the US is restrained by an international body like the=20
Security Council, it may rain wanton destruction upon Afghanistan.

America's leaders are baying for blood. Revenge is in the air as the=20
US prepares to settle scores with those it suspects of having=20
triggered off the unspeakably brutal terrorist acts of September 11.=20
Blind rage and calls for retribution to "teach the terrorists the=20
lesson of their life," have all but replaced the horror, pain and=20
anguish Americans felt at the stunning savagery of that day. Initial=20
descriptions of the attacks as crimes against humanity--which they=20
undoubtedly were--are giving way to a different language: attacks=20
against "Western civilisation", "our way of life", and against=20
Western "prosperity," presumably symbolised by the World Trade Centre.

Coupled with this shift from the universal language of humanity to=20
Western parochialism is a transition from metaphor to literalism. By=20
describing the ghastly September 11 attacks as "war", the US is=20
proceeding to declare "war" on global terrorism in=20
"self-defence"--without accountability to the international=20
community. It now threatens unlimited destruction upon its=20
ill-defined "enemy" even before its official agencies have collected=20
compelling evidence linking the suspects with Osama bin Laden, now=20
wanted "dead or alive." The US has been less concerned to=20
substantiate suspicions than to counter force with force, terror with=20
terror, claim an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth... However, as=20
Martin Luther King said, "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."

As America besieges and blinds itself with fear, suspicion and=20
hatred, civil liberties and individual freedoms--on which its=20
constitution rightly prides itself--take a beating. Paranoia competes=20
with hate speech. As sales of US flags increase tenfold, vile abuse=20
is equated with "patriotic pride." "I'm angry," fumes a grandmother=20
in suburban Atlanta, "I'm hoping we wipe these people out and... wipe=20
out [their] country.... Just get rid of them all..." Another=20
patriotic American demands: "Justice should not take precedence over=20
vengeance.... We ought to turn [the culprit country] into a glowing=20
desert."

As this ugly mood for massive retribution prevails, the US is=20
actually threatening horrible excesses and wanton damage to civilian=20
life in Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries on earth. Deputy=20
secretary of defence Paul Wolfowitz has declared that the aim of the=20
coming war is "not to capture a few terrorists and hold them=20
accountable; it is removing the sanctuaries, removing the support=20
systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism." There couldn't have=20
been a more open threat to destroy what remains of=20
Afghanistan--surely an excess disproportionate to the bin Laden=20
menace, however grave.

Such action is bound to produce a terrible reaction, creating an=20
unending spiral of violence, terror, counter-terror and further=20
violence. The colossal folly of an overpowering, and probably=20
indiscriminate, US response--as distinct from the use of measured,=20
moderate, force to bring the culprits to book--will be further=20
compounded if America acts unilaterally under the cover of an=20
"international coalition", or cynically manipulates the Security=20
Council into giving itself or NATO blanket power to use military=20
force.

There is every likelihood that the US will get away with such=20
unilateral action if it persists with the literal and legal use of=20
the metaphors "war" and "self-defence," and cites Article 51 of the=20
United Nations Charter, which permits the use of armed force by a=20
state in "self-defence" alone. It is hard to understand how "war" may=20
be declared against a method or tactic or form of violence--this=20
would be akin to Roosevelt declaring war not on Japan, but on=20
"bombing", after Pearl Harbour--but nobody is asking questions.=20
President Bush has armed himself with unprecedented Congress=20
authorisation to use force wherever and however he likes. Blanket=20
authorisation from the Security Council too, under Article 51, will=20
give him the power to unleash overwhelming force.

Bush must be restrained. But that can only be done if crucial=20
provisions of the same Article 51 are invoked: "Measures taken by=20
Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be=20
immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way=20
affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council... to=20
take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to=20
maintain or restore international peace and security." It is far from=20
clear if any major state or group of states will do so=20
formally--despite the reservations that Russia and China, and some=20
NATO allies, have expressed about US unilateralism.

Arrogance of power has blinded the US to many home truths. It simply=20
cannot comprehend why there is so much hatred against it in=20
Palestine, Iraq, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, even Pakistan.=20
Americans are rightly horrified at the New York attacks which have=20
probably killed 6,000 people. But they don't even register the deaths=20
of over four million people in US military interventions or covert=20
operations in four continents: from Angola, Argentina and Brazil,=20
through Cuba, Dominican Republic and Greece, to Vietnam, Timor and=20
Zaire. They are unconcerned that half a million children have=20
perished in Iraq alone under cruel, mindless sanctions which brought=20
that "middle-level human development" country (with far higher levels=20
of literacy and nutrition than India) to its knees-to a point where=20
major surgical operations had to be performed without anaesthesia.=20
Americans are equally blind to their government's complicity in=20
Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine, or its role in the Sabra=20
and Chatilla massacres of 1982--which left 17,500 dead--, engineered=20
by Ariel Sharon.

The confrontation imminent now is not (underline not) a war between=20
democracy and terrorism. The mass media, and the Indian government,=20
constantly remind us that the Taliban is a creation of Pakistan. But=20
they suppress the fact that bin Laden is himself the creation of the=20
US. His al-Quaeda was fathered and funded by the CIA as part of=20
America's holy war against the USSR. The Vajpayee government=20
dutifully joins Washington in condemning "terrorism", but it=20
conveniently forgets that the US has for decades bred terrorists and=20
trained sadistic generals and right-wing guerrillas in methods of=20
sabotage and torture in facilities like Camp Peary, next door to=20
Washington.

We must never forget that terrorism comes in both state and non-state=20
varieties. The use of indiscriminate violence by governments can be=20
infinitely more destructive than the sub-state terrorism of militants=20
and guerrilla groups. Hiroshima will remain the worst act of terror=20
in history. Sub-state groups' violence pales beside state terrorism.=20
The US is the wold's mightiest and most militarised state, with a 1.4=20
million-strong regular army and another 1.1 million in reserves. Yet,=20
this could not protect it against the pocket-knives and=20
cardboard-cutters used to overpower four civilian airliner flights.=20
The $30 billion it spends on intelligence gathering could not even=20
warn it against determined fanatics enraged by the arrogance of=20
American power, and especially by the ruthless repression of the=20
Palestinian intifadah. Instead of reflecting upon its policy failures=20
and the stupidity of reliance on purely military and physical means=20
for security, the US has set out to compound its epochal follies.

India, to its disgrace, has offered to become a willing, if=20
unsolicited and unrequited, collaborator of the US. It was among the=20
first states to offer it military cooperation and use of strategic=20
bases--even before NATO. This was before (underline before) US=20
agencies had collected significant evidence on responsibility for the=20
attacks. Many Indian policy-makers and -shapers could barely hide=20
their glee at the "historic" possibilities that September 11 opened=20
up for a new Indo-US "strategic partnership". The VHP and important=20
RSS-BJP leaders like Narendra Modi spoke of the "historic=20
opportunity", India's "finest", to act as America's main=20
"anti-terrorism" ally. Our security "experts" salivated: here was=20
India's chance to "vindicate" its one decade-long stand on=20
"terrorism" and be drafted as a frontline state in America's war.=20
Their reaction was no different from Israeli hardliners': "From the=20
perspective of the Jews, [September 11] is the most important=20
public-relations act ever committed in our favour", a writer said in=20
Maariv daily!

Prime Minister Vajpayee too went on air to reiterate his Pakistan=20
obsession: "We must hold governments wholly accountable for the=20
terrorism that originates from their countries ... [T]he world=20
community must get at their organisations, at those who condition,=20
finance, train, equip and protect them ...it must isolate, and...=20
compel states that nurture them... The world must join hands to=20
overwhelm them militarily..." This echoed Bush's own intemperate=20
early remarks, obliterating the distinction between terrorism and=20
states which breed it, or which support or condone it--a morally and=20
legally untenable proposition, which would be repugnant to the=20
jurisprudence that has evolved with the Nuremberg trials, with all=20
its distinctions between direct responsibility and degrees of=20
complicity.

Vajpayee & Co are sorely disappointed that the US has chosen Pakistan=20
as its "frontline" state--for understandable, if cynical, reasons:=20
the US is not waging a noble war against an international evil; it is=20
basically seeking revenge. As far as Afghanistan goes, Pakistan's=20
logistical and intelligence advantage as well as leverage over the=20
Taliban, far outweigh India's. The US has graduated Pakistan from a=20
state to be "given a chance" to join the anti-terrorist battle, to a=20
state that has "stepped up" to a responsible position. On September=20
19, Musharraf equally cynically linked Pakistan's support to the US=20
to Kashmir, nuclear weapons and to India's exclusion.

America's choice of Pakistan and its understanding of its=20
"sensitivities" has thrown its would-be Indian collaborators off=20
balance. Some of them peevishly complain that India has "missed the=20
bus." Vajpayee has turned positively sullen, witness his remarks to=20
"The Times of India" (Sept 20). Meanwhile, Jaswant Singh has proposed=20
another laughable idea: that a "concert of democracies" should=20
conduct the anti-terrorist operation, after the UN holds a conference=20
against terrorism. Interestingly, India is not insisting on a proper=20
Security Council mandate. The "concert" is no more than a tactic to=20
isolate Pakistan and build an exclusive relationship with the US,=20
coupled with a sophomoric, semi-academic conference proposal. It is=20
based upon the illusion that democracies are irrevocably opposed to=20
terrorism or won't behave in ways that create and strength it. This=20
is dangerously untrue, as the US's own history--and as Kashmir and=20
Sri Lanka--show.

With bankrupt and foolishly tactless "alternatives" like these,=20
reinforced by servile pro-US attitudes, India will be in no position=20
to resist hegemonic pressures for a bloody, brutal war in and around=20
Afghanistan. Pakistan too is drifting into this, with a little=20
trepidation, but equally motivated by the "chance"--of becoming=20
America's "frontline" ally and overcome the opprobrium that derives=20
from its "failing state" status and its support to the Taliban.

This course is deeply fraught. Such is the strength of the=20
Islamicisation process in Pakistan's armed forces, under the=20
encouragement of a bankrupt leadership, that it won't be easy for=20
Musharraf to pull off any joint operation with the US against=20
"Islamic" forces such as the Taliban. (His September 19 appearance=20
betrayed diffidence and confusion, not self-assurance.) Many=20
perceptive observers such as Tariq Ali fear a mutiny in the army. At=20
minimum, Pakistan will witness horrible social turmoil and further=20
destabilisation and destruction of its already fragile institutions.=20
There is a limit to how much force the Musharraf regime can use. The=20
more it is identified with the US, and the deeper the US gets into=20
the Afghan morass, the higher the likely social discontent. Pakistan=20
could conceivably undergo some of the some processes that led to=20
Afghanistan's collapse--albeit under a more centralised authority.=20
This could have horrifying consequences for that society--and for=20
India itself. A nuclear power collapsing on our borders is a=20
nightmarish prospect.

This prospect is not as fantastic as it might appear. By all=20
indications, bin Laden has an extensive military network with=20
reinforced bunkers. Breaking into it will need substantial land-based=20
operations, with high casualties. Afghanistan's terrain is=20
extraordinarily hostile and the infrastructure non-existent. There=20
are no high-value strategic assets, such as industries or power=20
stations, damage to which can ensure the adversary's quick surrender.=20
The temptation to inflict high personnel casualties will thus be=20
greater. The 45,000-strong Taliban militia mixes with and floats=20
among the civilian population. Thus, "collateral damage" will be=20
high. US troops will be extremely vulnerable to fierce attacks on the=20
open, rugged terrain. The danger of use of mass-destruction weapons=20
and disproportionate force by America is very real.

All these circumstances are conducive precisely to the kind of=20
unbearable pressures that generate cracks in state structures and=20
implode societies. Inviting America into our region could be a=20
suicidal course. To avert this, the US must be tamed-through the only=20
available international body, the Security Council. Instead of doing=20
this, the Vajpayee government is kowtowing to America. It is also=20
doing little to counter the equation of Islam with jehad and=20
terrorism, or to protect the minorities and defend pluralism and=20
secularism at this critical juncture. Terrible times lie ahead of=20
us.-end-

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. Dispatch
archive from 1998 can be accessed at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/act/messages/ . To subscribe send a blank
message to: <act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.

--=20