|
The News International, Wednesday, May 29,
2002
Enough is enough
Shireen M Mazari
The writer is Director General of the
Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad
It is becoming truly absurd now. As India has built up its
aggressive stance, and conducted a virtual ethnic cleansing of
the Muslims in Gujarat, the international community has either
deliberately, or otherwise, chosen to ignore the systematic
upping of the ante by India. In fact, during a period of
heightened tensions along the Pakistan-India border, as a result
of India's decision to amass its troops along this border, the
Americans chose to conduct joint military exercises with the
Indians near Agra - thereby, sending destabilising signals to
Pakistan, and positive signals to India of an acceptance of their
belligerency.
Thus, having indulged India's brinkmanship, the US and its allies
have turned on Pakistan - their favourite whipping boy in the
Pakistan-India equation - as the very real possibility of war
dawns on them belatedly.
So Pakistan is being asked to "turn off the terrorist
tap" (no such demands from India and Israel, of course!) and
its scheduled missile tests are being condemned! In addition, the
British have started a deliberate effort to destabilise Pakistan
internally in terms of investment and so on, by going for an
evacuation of all its diplomatic personnel, barring the essential
staff. This has, in turn, set off a domino effect, with other
Anglo-Saxon and European allies following suit. In all fairness,
at least the Americans have issued an advisory to their citizens
for both India and Pakistan. Strange why no Western State has
chosen to evacuate their citizens from the highly violent Israel
- what with suicide bombings and a virtual state of war pervading
that country!
In any event, the absurdity of it all is heightened by the
declared intent of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to visit
Pakistan (and India, of course). Having conducted a well-planned
policy of undermining Pakistan and accepting Indian violations of
all manner of human rights and international norms (be it in
Occupied Kashmir or Gujarat), it is a little absurd to host him
in Islamabad. Of course, we will do it, but there is little to be
gained by it. Mr Straw and the British have absolutely nothing to
offer -- at least to Pakistan since they cannot even play the
role of honest broker -- beyond echoing US desires.
Pakistan has played a most accommodating role with the US-led
coalition against terrorism since 9/11, but finally it is in
danger of being pushed beyond tolerance level. In this context,
the missile tests and the assertive remarks regarding our
security and defence, coming from the President (at the Seerat
Conference) and the army leadership were very much the need of
the hour. Pakistan is fulfilling its commitments to the
international community as well to the domestic agenda regarding
terrorism but the pace has to be in keeping with its national
compulsions and security needs; and, Mr Bush should first examine
how far he has kept US commitments to Pakistan (he may find the
record dismal), before he continues to repeat, ad nauseum, that
Pakistan "must fulfil its commitments."
There is a reality that the international community must make
India accept - and that is the reality of the indigenous struggle
in Occupied Kashmir. Despite the Indian military being deployed
in Occupied Kashmir for over a decade, and despite the massive
abuse of human rights by these forces, the Kashmiri struggle has
not been stamped out. No struggle can sustain itself for so long
without an indigenous base.
As for Pakistan putting Kashmir on the backburner, Pakistan has
done so many times before from the time of dictator Zia onwards -
and Ms Bhutto even tried to obliterate harmless reminders of
Kashmir by having the signpost of Kashmir House removed - but
this brought neither dÈtente and peace to South Asia, nor did it
force the Kashmiris to accept Indian occupation. All that
happened was that India occupied Siachin and destroyed the 1972
LoC, which both Pakistan and India had accepted through the Simla
Agreement.
As for the issue of Kashmiris being fed up of Pakistan and
wanting independence, no one has ascertained this from the
Kashmiris through a referendum/plebiscite. Whatever such an
exercise would demonstrate, what is already clear is that the
Kashmiris do not want to remain under Indian occupation!
In addition, the international community may not like it, but
until they renounce existing treaties and the UN Charter and
resolutions, they have to come to terms with the reality that
three types of struggles for self-determination have been given
international legitimacy repeatedly. Of course, as EU
Commissioner Chris Patten demonstrated at the ISSI last week, the
Europeans may well desire to accept only selective UN
resolutions, but that is not how international behaviour can be
governed. All treaties have to be respected just as all UN
resolutions are norm-creators in their field. One cannot pick and
choose which resolutions should be acceptable, for example, on
terrorism - unless one is able to get the UN to rescind all other
related resolutions.
The real problem today is that since 9/11, the US has let loose a
certain type of political anarchy in the world by bringing in a
subjective and dangerous morality into international relations
through the good-evil paradigm. Anyone who goes along with Mr
Bush is "good" and those who do not want to be part of
the US global agenda are "evil". Also, with little
proof, Mr Bush continues to declare one state after another as a
supporter of terrorists, or/and as a developer of weapons of mass
destruction (which the US and its allies have in plenty). From
Cuba to North Korea, no one whom the US distrusts is safe! And
the US has the military power to attack anyone it chooses - with
the rest of the world being fairly helpless in military terms.
As for international norms of behaviour, do they really count
anymore? No matter, for example, that states like Iran, Iraq and
Libya are all parties to the NPT and other international treaties
relating to weapons of mass destruction. No matter that Cuba has
barely seen the sort of international activism it undertook in
the seventies - which only helped to liberate many territories in
Africa from the twin evils of colonialism and apartheid.
It is unfortunate that the only military superpower has taken to
indulging in jingoism, because this will undermine the
credibility of existing international treaties. After all, if
states, who have given their commitment in terms of arms control
through international treaties, are still to be distrusted, then
what use are those treaties and their acquisition to them? But
then, the present US Administration itself does not lay great
store by international treaties - as reflected in the dismissal
of the International Criminal Court agreement, the Kyoto Protocol
and the already US-Senate-rejected CTBT.
In the prevailing scenario, while Pakistan needs to fulfil its
international commitments, it needs to realise that in its
relationship with India, the US and its allies will not be
neutral players. The US has a growing strategic relationship with
India and it is prepared to allow India the same indulgence it
allows Israel in terms of state terrorism and belligerency. The
British have always been clear in their bias towards India - both
at the official and unofficial levels. As for the Europeans, they
still have to evolve their own definitive foreign policy
identity. So while Pakistan has to engage with these powers, it
needs to look to its own interests from within and from beyond
the Western alliance.
As for avoiding a military confrontation with India, Pakistan has
been trying to do that since December 13, 2001, but India seems
to have misread peaceful intent for a complete political
surrender. That is why it has continued to up the ante, and, in
this venture it has been given either overt or tacit or
misperceived support by the US and its allies. Pakistan cannot
satisfy India's irrational demands and this has to be made clear
to the international community. After all, the example of
indulging irrational leaders is before the US and Europe in the
form of Hitler and Munich. We in Pakistan do tend to forget the
lessons of history - to our cost - but why have the British and
Americans suddenly become so ready to do the same. If Mr Straw
must come, then at least let us remind him of his own history and
the far-reaching fallout of Mr Chamberlain's Munich visit.
Perhaps that will stop a new Munich happening - this time in New
Delhi!