Condemned Either
Way
By Dr Shireen M. Mazari
The Hamas victory
in the recent Palestinian elections was a rare spark
of hope that a civil society can collectively impede
the will and diktat of the powerful. Perhaps Mr.
Bush is having second thoughts to his democracy
agenda now! He wanted democracy to spread to the
Middle East and that is what the Hamas victory has
signaled. It also reflects an honesty and courage
of commitment and tenacity on the part of the Palestinian
people -- a people without a state but with a tremendous
sense of nationhood.
Meanwhile, the US continues its arrogant approach
to foreign policy -- both at the official and non-official
levels. While the US Administration has not so much
as even whimpered a hint of regret at the killing
of innocent Pakistani citizens in Bajaur, the US
media along with its British counterparts has continued
to rant against the Pakistani state in what they
see as its lack of effort in helping nab the al-Qaeda
leaders. However, what is more ominous is that a
pattern seems to be emerging in the US Administration's
viceregal abuse of Pakistan's sovereignty and the
US-British media tirades against the Government
of Pakistan, especially the military.
The pattern suggests a deliberate effort to destabilize
the state of Pakistan by undermining its domestic
credibility and support in particular. So, despite
the protests over Bajaur, we continue to see the
US military carrying out military action on Pakistani
soil against Pakistani citizens -- the latest being
the violation of Pakistani air space by a US helicopter
on 29th January and the harassment of Pakistani
citizens in the tribal belt by the release of flares
by US helicopters which have hit children and terrorized
the locals. Alongside, the US and British media
at regular intervals come up with editorials and
stories that try to establish the reluctance of
the Pakistani leadership towards capture of al-Qaeda
leaders. Never mind that the arrest of most of the
members of this group so far could not have been
possible without the help of Pakistan -- that little
fact is conveniently forgotten.
That is why we saw the Washington Post, an obsessively
anti-Pakistan newspaper, write a diatribe against
Pakistan and its President (January 25th). There
was nothing new in the content of this diatribe.
Once again it bemoaned what it saw as an avoidance
by President Musharraf of an "all-out campaign
against the Islamic extremists in his country".
Presumably the paper would want to see the Pakistani
state kill all and sundry with any affiliation to
religious parties in the country. It talks of the
continuing economic aid coming from the US, but
it fails to mention the economic costs Pakistan
has incurred as a frontline state in the war against
terrorism.
Nor does it accept that the manner in which the
US is conducting this war has resulted in the creation
of more space for the terrorists when the strategy
should have been of denying political space to them.
But then it is difficult for an arrogant superpower
and its civil society to accept their strategic
errors. Much easier to make countries like Pakistan
the punching bag for the continuing survival of
al-Qaeda and its leaders! And while A. Q. Khan continues
to be maligned as the "greatest criminal proliferator,"
the Post has forgotten its own proliferator, Oppenheimer,
and its own government's proliferation role still
continuing within the context of Israel. And there
is also a memory lapse regarding India's nuclear
cooperation with Iran and the Saddam regime. Even
in the context of Khan, there is a convenient amnesia
regarding his "network" comprising Europeans!
As believers in democracy we, of course, continue
to accept all the insults and abuse meted out to
us by the US Administration and its "free"
media. But in its haste to abuse President Musharraf,
the Washington Post definitely crossed all bounds
of rationality and decency when it referred to the
President of Pakistan as "this meretricious
military ruler." Assuming that they are well-versed
in the English language, one assumes that they knew
the meaning of the word, "meretricious",
so they knew the word is normally used in a feminine
context and they knew the abuse they were hurling.
According to the Oxford dictionary, the word means
"showily attractive but cheap and is derived
from the Latin word, "meretrix" meaning
"prostitute". Need one say anything more?
But it is incumbent upon the country's representative
in Washington to take up this issue since it is
all very well to criticize a head of state but there
must surely be some sense of decency in the language
used.
A few days after this Washington Post hysteria,
we saw the British press have another go at the
Government of Pakistan. This time it was the Sunday
Telegraph which indirectly justified the US abuse
of Pakistani sovereignty and its attack against
Pakistani civilians in Bajaur, without prior notification
to the Pakistani government. It stated that the
US would have nabbed Osama bin Laden two years earlier
when they had information that he was in Zhob in
Balochistan, had Pakistan not delayed giving consent
for a US attack. By the time the permission came,
it was too late. Clearly such stories not only undermine
Pakistan generally, but also specifically target
the Pakistan military as an institution, raising
unsubstantiated suspicions on its intent. The Pakistan
government has denied this story and it seems a
little absurd that it took two years for this damning
information to come to light. But it fits neatly
into US efforts to counter the accusations of violation
of Pakistani sovereignty and the killing of innocent
Pakistani citizens!
Nor is it just Pakistan that is the subject of a
concerted vilification campaign in the Western media.
Islam itself is being ridiculed in the name of freedom
of the press -- especially in Europe. The recent
example is the scandal of the blasphemous cartoons
in the Danish press which the Europeans have justified
in the name of freedom of speech! Saudi civil society,
along with some Arab states, has done well to counter
this European stance by boycotting Danish products
and recalling their envoys. After all, freedom of
choice is everyone's right -- and Muslims must have
the freedom to exercise this choice of economic
and diplomatic boycott of Denmark.
Nor is this all. The Indian media has also been
capitalizing on the anti-Islam sentiment dominant
in the West post-9/11. For instance, Karan Thapar,
writing in the Hindustan Times last week on "Number
Crunching" refers to his friend pointing out
the importance of the number 11. The effort is to
link the acts of 9/11 to an alleged passage in the
Qur’an -- thereby trying to show that terrorists
who happen to be Muslims will justify 9/11 with
reference to their Holy Book! The reference given
for the passage quoted is 9:11. Having gone back
to the Qu’ran, I discovered this to be a total
fabrication because the verse cited is not there.
Perhaps Thapar and his friend were so obsessed by
linking terrorist events to the Holy Book of Islam
that they forgot others may actually check the source
cited.
Clearly, we cannot please our habitual detractors,
so let us go the way of our national interests.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
