The Vatican's
Obduracy
By Dr Shireen M Mazari
"Judge
not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not and
you shall not be condemned. Forgive and you shall
be forgiven." -- Chapter 6, The Gospel according
to St. Luke
It is unfortunate that the Pope did not recall these
words of Christ, from his Sermon on the Mount to
his twelve chosen Disciples, before he cited a Byzantine
emperor's condemnation of Islam and its Prophet
(PBUH). Now the Vatican's efforts to sidestep the
real issue in the Pope's speech in Germany last
week that upset the Muslim Ummah shows that the
Pope stands by his use of a citation that as a Muslim
one can regard as abusive to say the least. Having
read the text of his speech in full, there is little
room for misinterpretation in the manner in which
the Byzantine emperor's quote was used -- that is,
to support the Pope's concept of Islam.
The so-called apology is not related to the content
of the Papal assertions, only to the fact that these
assertions had caused pain and anger to the Muslims.
So effectively, the Pope is standing by what he
stated. It is interesting that he forgot to recall
the violence of the Crusades and the Inquisition.
As for his claims that the quote did not represent
his personal views, that is not in line with the
contents of his speech and one uses quote to either
support one's viewpoint or to contradict it and
he did it for the former purpose. Therein lies the
problem.
To begin with, surely there are enough problems
within his own Church for him to discourse on rather
than holding forth on Islam. It is difficult to
recall any Muslim preacher, no matter how extremist,
holding forth on Christian doctrinal issues in a
condemnatory manner. In any event, to select a quote
from a Byzantine emperor who was at war with the
Muslims shows an inbuilt bias in a pope who has
earlier been known to chastise Germany's Muslim
community leaders and to oppose Turkey's entry into
the EU on the grounds that it should find its place
among the Islamic states. Perhaps even more reflective
of the Pope's views towards the Islam and the Muslim
world were reflected in his removal, last February,
of Archbishop Fitzgerald, the President of the Vatican's
department for dialogue with Islam and the merging
of that department with the Vatican's culture ministry.
All these developments bode ill for the very necessary
interfaith dialogue and harmony, especially given
the presence of large Muslim minorities in the Christian
world, including Europe, and large Catholic minorities
in parts of the Muslim World. And for those of us
who have close and fond associations with the Jesuits,
who educated us, the present Papacy's confrontationist
approach is agonizing -- coming as it does in the
aftermath of Pope John Paul who not only traveled
to a number of Muslim countries but also was the
first Pope to visit a mosque. He made no compromises
on his views on violence but he did reach out and
was respected by all as a spiritual leader. Cleary
the present Pope has a more political agenda --
or at least he seems to be unwittingly giving religious
cover to the political anti-Islam agenda. Fortunately,
the Muslim leadership has responded forcefully to
the Pope's speech and this has prevented Muslim
civil societies from going on a violent course which
serves no purpose.
In fact, we seem to be imbued with a conciliatory
spirit all around. After a long time a substantive
development, beyond mere atmospherics, has taken
place in the Pakistan-India dialogue process, which
will help Pakistan fight terrorism within the country
more effectively. This is the agreement reached
in principle between President Musharraf and Prime
Minister Singh in Havana to put in place a Pakistan-India
anti-terrorism institutional mechanism to identify
and implement counter-terrorism initiatives and
investigations.
This will allow the two countries to share information
on suspected terrorists and investigations relating
to acts of terrorism. For Pakistan, this means that
India can now formally be asked to look into allegations
of Indian connections to terrorist acts in Balochistan.
Also, Pakistan can share information with India
regarding the Indian support for the BLA and India's
alleged training of terrorists in Afghanistan for
conducting acts of terror in Pakistan. India of
course has been accusing Pakistani-based terrorist
groups of having a hand in certain terrorist acts
in India such as the Mumbai blasts, but Pakistan
has always asked India for evidence on which it
can proceed. Now that procedure can also be formalized.
As for fears that the freedom struggle in Kashmir
may be brought into the ambit of this new terrorism
mechanism, that is not the case because the international
community continues to make a distinction between
terrorism and struggle for self-determination. Just
when the leaders of Pakistan and India were agreeing
to this new mechanism, they were also giving their
consent to the final document of the NAM Summit
which once again reiterated the distinction between
terrorism and self-determination struggles. While
terrorism was condemned in a strong and forthright
manner, the final document also stated categorically
that:
"Terrorism should not be equated with the legitimate
struggle of peoples under colonial or alien domination
and foreign occupation for self-determination and
national liberation. The brutalisation of people
remaining under foreign occupation should continue
to be denounced as the gravest form of terrorism,
and that the use of State power for the suppression
and violence against peoples struggling against
foreign occupation in exercising their inalienable
right to self-determination should continue to be
condemned. In this regard and in accordance with
the UN Charter, international law and the relevant
UN resolutions, the struggle of peoples under colonial
or alien domination and foreign occupation for self-determination
and national liberation does not constitute terrorism."
As the Almaty Declaration had done in June 2002,
when it reaffirmed the principle of self-determination
(Article II:15), and emphasized that this principle
must be exercised "in accordance with the UN
Charter and international law", the NAM Final
Document has also sustained the international distinction
between terrorism and self-determination. And in
both cases, the reference is to the UN Charter and
UN Resolutions and the indigenous Kashmir struggle,
by any of these criteria falls within these definitional
parameters of self-determination. Pakistan and India
are parties to both these Documents. So there is
no question of the Kashmir dispute and struggle
being brought into the terrorist ambit as a result
of the Pakistan-India agreement to set up a joint
anti-terrorism institutional mechanism.
However, once the mechanism is in place, it will
allow both countries to deal with the terrorism
and extremism problem in a rational and systematic
fashion. This should not only help both states to
deal more effectively with the twin scourges of
terrorism and extremism but also to refrain from
inflammatory rhetoric which only undermines regional
stability and threatens to reverse any progress
that may be in the offing in the dialogue process
-- which is the only way to peaceful resolution
of conflicts and lasting peace.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
