yatumakefriends

Pakistan Observer, Islamabad, Novembwer 19, 2001.
Make friends, not enemies

Muhammad Ahsan Yatu

That was perhaps the only moment of pleasure for President Musharraf, after the sad day of September 11, when President Bush while agreeing with him pronounced that Northern Alliance should not enter into Kabul. Northern Alliance didn�t oblige. It entered and that it had to; not doing so would have meant to leave Kabul to no body, and thus to anarchy and also to another political headache. Even otherwise who could stop a marching army? Only Taliban could, but they preferred to flee. They too did the right thing. They were used to victories managed by the others, and as such they had never acquired composition of a fighting force. Expecting them to resist an American supported onslaught was not justified.

President Bush is no military strategist, nor is he that conversant with foreign lands and affairs, why President Musharraf opposed Northern Alliance�s entry into Kabul appears odd. Being a Pakistani General---policy makers in Pakistan are generals---he is a political and military strategist, and an initiator, hence a better move or silence was expected from him. Thus it is not strange that his severe criticism was answered with equal severity when Northern Alliance while entering Kabul shouted Death to Talibans, death to Pakistanis.

Americans opted Northern Alliance only after Pakistan and OIC refused to involve their forces. Afterwards Pakistan didn't object to Northern Alliance�s role till it reached the gates of Kabul. Moreover once it became part of coalition forces Northern Alliance had the backing of whole world. It is darling of Russia, Central Asian States, Iran, India and to some extent also of China, adds to its strength. Even otherwise Pakistan�s decisions of abandoning of Talibans, and siding with America simply meant that Northern Alliance was our partner as well. Being that critical to it meant we are not only questioning the integrity of our own policies but also annoying every country, which matters in the world. And that is neither strategy nor diplomacy nor wisdom. If we continue with such ambiguity, it would be more disastrous than before, and that is a reality to be understood after September 11, the day that changed the world; if not forever, for many many decades to come, certainly. Accordingly we too need to change, before reverse change is forced on us.

The developed world has learnt a lesson through the terrible loss inflicted by the innovative kind of terrorism: that it must live in coordination and not in discord. It might not abandon its instinct of snatch, though there is not much left with the illiterate world to be snatched. In fact presently it is the developed world, which has so much to share, be it wealth, knowledge and social values. It would share its resources mostly within and how much it would share with the others would depend on how compatible the others become. So, for all useful purposes, the developed world is bound to act as a homogenous block that would stretch from Russia to Europe to America to Asia Pacific to China. Regional powers would be facilitated to look after each other�s interests. For example Afghanistan and Central Asia would again come under Russian sphere of influence. Europe and America would share the hold on western Asia. Asia Pacific would come under the influence of Australia, China and to some extent Japan. Most of the Africa would be left as before on its own, as it is taken as more of a liability. India and Israel would not, as such, become part of a homogenous westernised block due to their location, but they would be engaged as friends because of their love for westernisation. No major clash would appear within this block though rivalry would exist, but it would manifest in achievements related to higher knowledge.
Why did the developed world turn to so big a coordination? Apart from superiority in knowledge, technology and economics, the developed countries have one more thing in common; they have same civilisation, the western civilisation, which is also the only civilisation that presently exists. It has evolved through centuries of hard work, and it is the best that humanity has socially evolved, so far. And it would not be allowed to be destroyed by the psychopathic individuals, groups and the states. It would be jointly protected; and would not be promoted in the underdeveloped world and that is the most tragic outcome of terrorism that was inflicted on the Americans. Here it may be noted that the difference between those who belong to western civilisation and the rest is that of knowledge. Or the difference is between those who know and who know-not: Or it is between those who love knowledge and who abhor it. And knowledge is so precious a commodity, which the developed world would not share from now onwards so generously. This is how the terrorist act of September 11 would affect the underdeveloped world.

Yet, the nations who would become compatible with the western civilisation would escape the wrath. Most of the countries of the world would one day do it---again through the western help---but the same cannot be said about many African countries, whether they are Christian or Muslims that won�t matter---and also about all such countries, which have large Muslim population, because only a few amongst them have the will or capacity to move forward. Central Asian States would be westernised, and that is sure. Palestine, Egypt, Turkey, Mali, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Indonesia and Malaysia would also be encouraged and helped, but whether they would develop meaningfully would depend on how quickly they become real democratic countries. The rest of the Muslim world has no intention of moving forward. In this regard ours is a good example. The best was displayed by the Talibans.
What is wrong with us? At the beginning we had inherited a secular society, secular knowledge, and secular institutions from the British. Not only that the Britishers also gave us the best irrigation system in the world. So, most that was necessary for development was available with us, yet only days before we formally became Independent, we started destroying what we had inherited. Presently we have nearly accomplished the mission. How it started? Liaqat Ali Khan and Choudhary Muhammad Ali opened the account by banning the speech of Quaid that he delivered on August 11, 1947. Those who have read this speech would agree that it is a political masterpiece, and the only document that we can feel proud of. Choudhary Sahib and Khan Sahib were no individuals; they were representatives of a ruling elite, which didn't represent the majority. The lack of support made them fearful and to strengthen their rule they depended on pre-partition rhetoric and also on outside support. Though the faces of ruling elite kept on changing, but structurally it remained same, and it continued to live under fears. These fears were, afterwards, exploited by the army, but eventually army too became the victim. Fearful of what would happen if Bengalis were allowed to rule, it resisted transfer of power to them, and that led to division of Pakistan. So, the wrong with us are the fears of what would happen if status quo were to be changed. Let us come out of these fears, and sit together to resolve our dreadful internal contradictions? A huge army, which is phenomenally out of proportion to our small economy, cannot lead us to prosperity, and guarantee our integrity. We need to turn to modernisation of economy and westernisation of society, if we want to survive respectfully. For that we will have to turn to social democracy, politically as well as economically. The turning may be gradual, but let us at least take the start.

Externally we are one of the luckiest countries, because we are safe on borders. India would not invade us. Its rulers are busy in finding means to sustain 6% GDP growth; a phenomenon, we are least interested in. Iran and China are not concerned. Afghanistan has been destroyed to such limits that it would take many many decades to stabilise itself. So, there is no external threat? Yet we are bent upon creating one. Is it necessary to invite enmity? Let us admit that Northern Alliance is a reality, whether it remains in power or not. Good relations with it would connect us to a resourceful world and through a land route to the west and western civilisation also. Let us support it. Let us support ourselves.

(The End)

The Nation, Islamabad, November 19, 2001.
Evolving our own Afghan policy

Muhammad Ahsan Yatu

It is a tragic tale. A country has been made so miserable---through the wars imposed by the outsiders and through internal and external warlords supported by regional and global powers---where no simple solution to its complex problems seems practical. That is why division of Afghanistan along ethnic lines is being talked about since long and this evil idea has again raised its head in the news and the views. Ordinarily one would not be impressed or influenced by such debate, but this time the suggestion has come from a high ranking UN official, who is also connected with Afghan affairs, and that means the subject is being discussed at places that matter. No doubt the division would bring peace to Afghanistan but who would guarantee the continuation of peace. Neither UN nor US would stay in Afghanistan forever, and none of the partitions would be economically viable unless supported by the outsiders. Thus, a divided Afghanistan would need to be placed under the influence of its neighbouring states: South to Iran, Northeast to Pakistan and Northwest to Central Asian States or Russia. Yet, the situation would not become ideal for the reasons that the Afghans particularly the Pukhtoons will not agree to that. The divide would benefit Pakistan is yet another question and perhaps the most important one? Pakistan is already locked on its eastern side due to the on going enmity with India. If Afghanistan gets divided the western side would also be blocked and perhaps forever, because Iran and Iranian side of Afghanistan would provide the required link to the world and to the Central Asian States for a meaningful interaction; thus Pakistan would be nicely left out.

How Pakistan would react, if such situation arises? Given the political wisdom dominant in Pakistani establishment, whole scenario would become an unbearable irritant, yet it might not be addressed as required. Because the solution lies in broader regional engagement and that would not be acceptable to Pakistan until Kashmir problem is resolved. It is strange that sea routes and silk route are not enough for our economic and social growth and we have thoroughly experienced that since our inception, yet Pakistani establishment is fixed to their ideas of a limited regional relationship. If we want to play some meaningful role in the region and also in the world, and if we want to come out of persistent economic uncertainties, then the opening and functioning of land link from Bengal to India to Pakistan to Afghanistan to Central Asia to Europe is essential.

Hence, Pakistan should assert strongly on the coalition forces following six articles: 1) Unity of Afghanistan. It is an utmost necessity because without it divergence of interests in a divided Afghanistan from within and without would become media for recurrence of instability. 2) The base of coalition forces should be widened. It must include the forces of prominent regional countries, and also of OIC. 3) Such coalition forces must stay in Afghanistan under the command of US/UN for a reasonable period, so that the country gets enduring peace and stability. 4) Formation of a democratic or consensus government, which must have representation of all ethnic segments of Afghans. 5) Financial package to war torn country so that it reconstructs itself. To this effect at this stage a commitment through UN should be ensured. 6) Since decades of Afghan instability has almost equally affected Pakistan, hence, it too would need help to undo the damage.

What Pakistan should take up on its own? Pakistan should not worry about the behaviour of future government in Afghanistan: If it represents all the segments of Afghan society, Pakistan should strongly support it. This is perhaps the only way to reach Central Asia and then to Europe through land route; and that means much in terms of trade and transfer of technology, which would help us to secure our future. There is no doubt that Pakistan can avoid Indian factor in Afghanistan by not opening its land route on the Indians but that would be disastrous because it would amount to sticking to fifty year old failed policies. Moreover, it might lead to yet another round of tension in Afghanistan. And that would also affect Pakistan. Here, it must be noted that under the evolved environment whichever government is formed in Afghanistan would have to be friendly to Pakistan, Central Asian States, Russia, China, Iran and India. So, it would be better to take advantage of the conflict-less situation, rather than feeling annoyed about it.

Yet, if we remained chained to our fatal perceptions then no one can stop the division of Afghanistan, and in that case Pakistan would be the biggest and perhaps the only loser. India would get connected, though at a higher economic cost, through a sea plus land route via Gulf and the part of Afghanistan that would come under Iranian influence. In this regard we must also keep in mind that an agreement on this subject already exists between Iran, Russia and India.

In the on going situation---which apparently seems result-less, though it is not, because coalition forces are achieving, slowly and steadily, their planned objectives--where do we stand? Perhaps amid a great confusion! We certainly have our own objectives, but to achieve them and that too in a shorter length of time we will have to do lot more than what we are doing now. For that we will have to evolve our own policies, to push ourselves in, and not to leave every thing to the Americans? Pakistan has to play its own cards and that demands planned forceful Pakistani involvement in current Afghan crisis. This would not only save thousands of Afghan lives, it would but also give more weight to Pakistan, and that would increase our say in whatever has to happen to Afghanistan after the war is over. And if the divide is the desire of the coalition forces, that too can be effectively checked. Now when we are on American side that means we are already against their opponents, the Talibans and Osama, no matter what we say and how we satisfy the others or ourselves. What would matter now is kind of support we are rendering to coalition forces, and how far, and how closely we get ourselves involved. Time has come to stand also by our own side and that would be achieved only through more participation in war against terrorism. To have that we should stand by the coalition forces right in Afghanistan. The sooner it is done, the earlier present crisis would come to an end, and that would be better for all, particularly for miserable Afghans and we poor Pakistanis.

(The End)