Lawlessness,
Terror and a Common Insecurity
By Shireen M Mazari
The Jamia Hafsa
saga of terrorization of civil society and of a
continuing violation of the law of the land has
the nation mesmerized in a state of disbelief and
horror. Disbelief at the inability/reluctance of
the state to exercise its writ; and horror at the
prospect of civil society at large becoming hostage
to the tyranny of the minority of extremists in
our midst. After all, we are already seeing tyrannical
decrees being issued by extremists in various parts
of the Frontier province while the sectarian violence
continues in Parachinar area quite oblivious to
any effective state intervention.
The ineffectual writ of the state was also written
large at the Sunni Tehreek (ST) rally in Karachi
a year after the terrorist bombing in Nishtar Park.
Last week's rally had the ST leader brandishing
a sword and declaring his organization's intent
to take the law into their own hands -- as he put
it, "There will be arrests, bullets will fly,
bodies will fall to the ground". And these
are just a few of the more visible reflections of
the violence and anarchy being threatened from within
the country by a violent minority who are becoming
increasingly emboldened into defying the law and
the writ of the state. Is it any wonder that the
rest of civil society is reflecting its options:
either to succumb to the pressure of these obscurantists
or to stay confined within the home and hearth --
with a few having the privilege of weighing a third
option: that of seeking an exodus to safer and more
positive climes.
To a large extent the malaise afflicting us presently
is a result of our own internal dynamics -- especially
where the state is seen to also be paying scant
regard to the law. Be it the cops manhandling the
non-functional chief justice or beating up unarmed
protestors or attacking the offices of a television
channel; or state institutions disregarding environmental
and other laws; or local elected nazims misusing
funds or harassing political rivals; or municipal
organizations violating articles of the Constitution
in a most brazen fashion -- the message being conveyed
to the public at large is that the law can be violated
if there is force to back up this violation.
Nor do we have to look far for such instances. Right
in our capital we are now beset with the threat
of vigilante action and the destruction of the city
itself by the CDA. While we are focused on the former,
the CDA boss continues to violate the Constitution
with impunity, especially Article 26 of the Constitution
which ensures non-discrimination in respect of access
to public places. As part of his ongoing violations
of this Article, he has now approved a membership-only
golf course in the F-9 public park despite the fact
that golf is an expensive and elitist sport. The
argument that money needs to be raised to maintain
the park is absurd since we pay property and other
taxes to the CDA to maintain the city, including
its public parks. But who is noticing these challenges
to an already battered Constitution?
Adding to our domestic challenges is the mutating
war on terror (WOT) under the US leadership, post-9/11.
With a military-centric approach, the WOT has mutated
into a war for pushing forward a dangerous global
agenda of the US and its coalition of the willing
and we are seeing Muslim states and civil societies
becoming almost sole targets of the WOT -- given
that state terrorism has been totally ignored in
this "war".
From the invasion of Iraq, to the extra-legal advent
of NATO into Afghanistan, the WOT, with a reckless
approach to collateral damage, has created increasing
space for terrorists. Additionally, the abuse of
Muslim prisoners, at the illegal facility of Guantanamo
Bay and at Abu Ghraib and other Iraqi prisons manned
by the occupying forces, has provided space for
extremists to gain access into the hearts and minds
of Muslim populations.
Fighting against terrorists meant fighting an asymmetric
war which required unconventional strategies, since
the goal was politico-military in terms of winning
over the hearts and minds of targeted populations
and thereby denying space to terrorists and extremists
who could become future terrorists. Yet the strategy
of using conventional military power never reflected
this end goal. Conventional land, sea or air forces
cannot successfully be pitted against the unconventional
enemy -- especially where human intelligence networks
have not been spread out effectively. Instead, local
populations have arisen against the external powers
and extremism and terrorism have gained space as
they have become enmeshed with nationalism.
As for the US-NATO plug for the notion of "common
security", there can be no such concept unless
there is respect for the territorial integrity and
sovereignty of all states within a particular neighborhood
-- in our case the Gulf and South Asian neighborhoods.
Yet we have a scenario in these regions -- both
interlinked -- where there is an amassing of extra-regional
military forces both in the Gulf and Indian Ocean
region and in Central Asia and Afghanistan, alongside
an ongoing effort by the US to destabilize and bring
about regime change in one of the major regional
states -- Iran. Then there is the destablization
of the bilateral Pakistan-India nuclear deterrence
as a result of the Indo-US nuclear agreement and
military deal. Add to this the constant violations
of Pakistan's sovereignty by US-NATO forces along
the Pakistan-Afghanistan international border, accompanied
by the cacophony of unfounded accusations against
Pakistan from Karzai and NATO as the situation under
their control worsens, and for countries like Pakistan
these become threats that aggravate its long term
security.
So there can be no common security notion as long
as the intent is to target one state deliberately
and destabilize or undermine another's security.
Certainly part of the rise of extremism in Pakistan
is a result of the external environment and the
sense of Muslims being targeted or even victimized
by the US and Europe. As it is, the domestic sectarian
issue has become intertwined with transnational
terrorism. Add to this news about the US actually
using terrorist groups like Jundullah to conduct
acts of terror against the Iranian state, and the
security issue for Pakistan becomes even more intractable
since the US media has been asserting that Pakistan's
Balochistan territory is being used for these attacks.
That no government of Pakistan would ever allow
such criminal activity is a given since it would
be undermining our own stability and security; but
if the perception of the writ of the state being
weak becomes widespread then external actors could
become reckless enough to use our territory. And
the US track record in terms of its relationship
with Pakistan is not particularly comforting --
remember the U-2 incident?
It is ironic that the US is now supporting a terrorist
outfit in the bizarrely mutating WOT. If the US
can use one such outfit for its own ends, who is
to say whether they may not be supporting other
extremist outfits in Pakistan also, perhaps in our
capital itself? It is no wonder, then, that the
WOT has left the mainstream of the moderate Muslim
Ummah under siege with a common sense of insecurity
and terrorization from within and from outside.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
