06-27-2008, 08:39 AM
After Iraq, Pakistan?
Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia Should Invoke International Law
over Iraq to prevent a holocaust in the Middle East
By Brigadier ® Usman Khalid
In a speech at the Governor's House in Lahore (on 18 January) President Musharraf said that he feared that Pakistan could be a target (of American War on Terror) after Iraq. For once he was spot on. The General, after a review of the situation, is expected to produce a new plan. But General Musharraf prefers tried and tested methods. Like one of his predecessors General Yahya Khan - who dashed off to Moscow when he realised that attack on East Pakistan was imminent and his American friends were not going to help, President Musharraf is also on his way to Moscow. But his cynicism is as bad as his judgement. He is using the 'American threat' to tighten his hold over power. He openly interferes in grant of party tickets (of PML-Q) and makes appointments to the Cabinet and other high offices, which are the prerogatives of the Party and the Prime Minister. There is unrest and disquiet in Pakistan as power continues to be exercised by the same old American moles. One could sympathise with the Prime Minister for surviving on a diet of political crumbs but he is expected to uphold the sovereignty of the parliament and integrity of his own role as the Chief Executive. It is pathetic to see ministers taking turns to praise the General for transferring power while he has done no such thing. Prime Minister Jamali has even adopted the mantra of 'Pakistan First' as if that is adequate justification for inaction when Iraq is invaded. Pakistan faces a much bigger threat than in 1971. That is not a mantra; that is a fact. Obeying America or the General would not make the threat disappear.
In the same speech he said he could take off his uniform any time but he would not do so because it is national interest. He did not reveal what that interest was? According to the law and rules of Pakistan, he should have retired a long time ago when he completed his tenure of three years as COAS.
If any national interest is served by the retired not retiring, he should let us know; the rest of us (retired generals) are just as eager to discard the civvies if it serves a national interest. The fact is that his continuing in uniform makes it possible to demonise Pakistan as a military dictatorship. If he believes that he is the sole interface with America and serves national interest in consequence, he labours under two misconceptions. One, America has many interfaces but he is the one with the Army that the enemies of Pakistan have sought to demonise as the 'rogue army' in the past and would do so again. General Musharraf provides local rationale and support for the future international demonisation campaign. Two, America never hesitates to betray its erstwhile friends when it does not need them. The list of 'betrayed by the US' is long; Saddam Hussain is only their latest victim.
I am reminded of late General Shaukat Riza who used to say: when a military dictator comes to power he says, " the people do not know what is good for them; I know what is good for them" ; but they all end up saying, " I am good for them". I was one of those who welcomed the take over by General Musharraf after a pathetic game of musical chairs between BB and NS. I say with regret that Musharraf is no different to the proverbial dictator characterised so well by the late soldier intellectual. In every speech he makes he praises himself for saving Pakistan in (three) crises. The first two crises, he says, were economic and he saved Pakistan by deploying Shaukat Aziz. In the third crisis he saved Pakistan himself by violating the international law, allowed the use of Pakistan's territory to invade Afghanistan that installed an anti Pakistan government in Kabul. The 'ungrateful' nation is begging him to stop saving Pakistan and step down. He is already showing signs of having caught the 'foot in the mouth' disease. In an address to the troops, he said that he forced India to withdraw without a fight by threat of use of 'unconventional' war. This led to an uproar in India. He should know better than anyone else that India deployed its armed forces on our borders on America's suggestion and withdrew when it was denied permission to invade.
Apart from Israel, Zionists and Neo-Conservatives in the US, every human being on our planet is alarmed that the invasion being planned by the USA and UK would not be a war; the disparity of strength between Iraq and the forces being assembled against it is so great that it would be a massacre on an unprecedented scale. It is bow and arrow against guns once again that made Indian race extinct in North America. Comparing the coming conflict with War with Communism or even the Crusades is grossly misleading. It is not a religious or an ideological conflict; it is a genocidal war to empty countries of people whose territory is coveted. It entails bombing at such an extensive scale that even those with nothing more lethal than a stare are legitimate targets. It is not an accident that the only allies of America in this war are India and Israel. America did not include the freedom fighters of Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya in its list of targets as terrorists in a fit of stupor or rage. Zionists and Neo-Conservatives are still a minority in America and they have to enlist the countries where genocide of Muslims is ongoing with majority support for it to be sustained world-wide.
The countries in the Triangle of Evil are joined by their objective as well as methods. They have concluded from the failure to crush resistance in Palestine and Kashmir that the use of force was too little. Afghanistan has established the precedence for the use of precision bombing from high altitude to fight terrorists that cannot be located or found. Iraq would set the precedence that any reason is good enough for invading a country that cannot fight back.
Most Western political observers believe that the invasion of Iraq is inevitable. They say if Saddam Hussain was spared once again, Iran and Iraq would both become nuclear powers able to deter the invasion of their territory. From the security of invulnerability, they would threaten Western interests in the region. The opposite argument is equally convincing. The invasion of Iraq would not eliminate threats to Western assets and interests. On the contrary, spread of asymmetrical war into new areas with new weapons and tactics would lead to massive increase in insecurity. The elimination of WMD from Iraq and later other countries like North Korea through the UN would be more thorough and less destabilising and costly. Many countries Argentina, Brazil and South Africa - have abandoned their nuclear weapons programmes upon elimination of threats or obtaining self-determination. That is the route to irreversible nuclear disarmament. Naming countries as the Axis of Evil (Iraq, Iran and North Korea) has the opposite effect. This was seen as a sort of an ultimatum that made a powerful case for the three states to equip themselves with nuclear weapons. Most European countries, particularly Germany, believe that the strategy of the Bush Administration has been counter-productive; it has destabilised the vital region of the Middle East and increased tension and insecurity world-wide.
The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, endorses the Neo-Conservative view of war in Iraq. He asserts that the invasion is justified because it would set a new precedence to recognise the right of the super power to eliminate WMD pre-emptively to allow it to secure the submission of any and every state by the use of the awesome power of new precision guided conventional weapons. He believes that diplomacy should be used more effectively so that the need to wage war should be reduced as much as possible because it is economically destabilising. He believes that diplomacy (threats and blackmail) should be employed to keep the Muslim World divided and unable to articulate an effective response. He believes that Muslim public opinion should be assuaged with promises to address popular causes and reiterating that their war is not against Islam - merely against terrorists and rogue states. He has initiated action to shorten the list of rogue Muslim states and hosted Syrian President Asad (ex rogue) at an official visit to the UK. He has also been promoting the two-state solution for Palestine. As Robert Fisk pointed out, it is not because of a change of heart, it is because he feels it is vital to have a few Arab states in the force invading Iraq.
Carrots are being hung out to help Arab and Muslims rulers to assuage their people. This is only temporary. Sticks would be out as soon as the fighting phase of the invasion is over. Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - the targets of America after it has dealt with Iraq - have the need as well the ability to articulate the response of the Ummah. Iran is active but is hemmed in by its being named in the Axis of Evil. The role assigned to General Musharraf is to keep Pakistan out by giving an internal focus to the response of the Ummah. The clout of Pakistan would be focussed inwards dealing with the popular outrage by shooting at 'fundamentalist troublemakers'. Saudi Arabia has been put on the defensive by allegation of 'hijackers' being Saudi citizens and threat of a trillion-dollar lawsuit. In this environment, Prince Abdullah was invited to visit the US. He was feted in Washington as an ally in war on terrorism while the American press was in frenzy portraying Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi Islam as the most anti-West and extremist. The Prince was encouraged to offer his 'peace plan' for Palestine (short of UNSC Resolution 242) and doubly humiliated when it was rejected by Israel and ignored by every one else. After putting him in his place, the emirates of the Arabian Peninsula were coerced to fall in line. They merely requested that their consent to allow the use of their territory for the invasion should not be made public. Jordan is taken for granted and is not even asked. Turkey is still holding out but one cannot be sure, how long?
The USA is not depending entirely on General Musharraf to deny Pakistan a role in leading the fight back. They have the support of the Benazir and MQM. With PML (Q) happy with chanting the Musharraf mantra of "Pakistan First" Benazir accuses it being half hearted in crushing Kashmiri 'terrorists' and hunting Al-Qaeda members allegedly hiding in Pakistan. She is focussed on outdoing Musharraf in loyalty to the US. At the same time, she seeks to underline her party's credentials as superior to that of the MQM as an Anti Islamist party by not joining the 'right wing' government. No wonder the alarmed nation is flocking to the ranks of the MMA. Even that has failed to prevent General Musharraf from blatant efforts to tighten his hold over power. The nation is numb with fear - of dangers that are so obvious and the realisation that its new civil government is powerless. Pakistan courts the danger of slipping into anarchy and instability at a time when the Muslim world needs it to provide clear objectives and viable plans to fight the fight that is being imposed upon us. But miracles do happen! PML (Q) could find the courage to respond to public opinion and join the MMA in challenging the LFO. The military could force the President to submit to the law and get out of uniform and step down.
If the miracle did occur and the Prime Minister acted like the Chief Executive he is, what must he do? In fact, he can unite the nation and transform its morale in a week. He could: 1) sack the American moles in his administration, 2) declare opposition to the invasion of Iraq without a second UNSC Resolution, 3) ask the US to relocate the FBI teams to within the premises of the US Embassy and vacate the four bases in Pakistan that have no use except as 'red rag to the bull', 4) call for a Summit of OIC to pass a Resolution to deny the use of territory and air space of one member state for the invasion of another member and, 5) add the voice and argument of Pakistan to world-wide outcry against invasion of Iraq. Many would argue that such actions would earn the ire of America. Nothing could be farther from the truth. President Bush is not America. We would be acting as the true friends of America if we took action to preclude violation of international law.
We need to join the rest of the world in bringing home to America that invasion of Iraq would lead to protracted asymmetrical war. The UN route is the only viable route to elimination of WMD. America has to distance itself rather than embrace India and Israel. Their expansionist policies and projects are the main cause of conflict and war as well as the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It serves nobody's interest to make dire predictions of clash of civilisations or wars over oil and other natural resources. The world is too interdependent to sustain protracted asymmetrical war without courting the risk of the collapse of the economic system of the world.
General Musharraf is now a part of the problem, not the solution. His personal unpopularity provides the vehicle as well as the rationale for destabilising Pakistan. His continuing in uniform is against the national interest; his quiet exit from power is the dire need and the interest of Pakistan. The recent elections have brought unity and focus to the country. The General is threatening that. Pakistan is ready and able to play its part to fight the dangers faced by the Muslim Ummah. Instead of wasting time in answering accusations by Jewish and Indian media (which is the main tactics of the enemy) we should concentrate on the issue of war and peace. The peace of the world is in danger from USA and the UK threatening to invade Iraq. In international law, war is justified when a country is invaded or invasion is imminent. USA and UK have not been invaded by Iraq; no one sees an imminent
threat to them from Iraq. It is the interest of the whole world that no new precedence is set. It is not a problem of the Muslim World; it is the problem of the entire world. USA and UK threaten the whole edifice of international law on which peace and prosperity of the world is founded. Now that threat to Pakistan is manifest, we should drop the pretence of 'everything is fine' and seek the protection of International Law for Iraq and by implication for Pakistan as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia Should Invoke International Law
over Iraq to prevent a holocaust in the Middle East
By Brigadier ® Usman Khalid
In a speech at the Governor's House in Lahore (on 18 January) President Musharraf said that he feared that Pakistan could be a target (of American War on Terror) after Iraq. For once he was spot on. The General, after a review of the situation, is expected to produce a new plan. But General Musharraf prefers tried and tested methods. Like one of his predecessors General Yahya Khan - who dashed off to Moscow when he realised that attack on East Pakistan was imminent and his American friends were not going to help, President Musharraf is also on his way to Moscow. But his cynicism is as bad as his judgement. He is using the 'American threat' to tighten his hold over power. He openly interferes in grant of party tickets (of PML-Q) and makes appointments to the Cabinet and other high offices, which are the prerogatives of the Party and the Prime Minister. There is unrest and disquiet in Pakistan as power continues to be exercised by the same old American moles. One could sympathise with the Prime Minister for surviving on a diet of political crumbs but he is expected to uphold the sovereignty of the parliament and integrity of his own role as the Chief Executive. It is pathetic to see ministers taking turns to praise the General for transferring power while he has done no such thing. Prime Minister Jamali has even adopted the mantra of 'Pakistan First' as if that is adequate justification for inaction when Iraq is invaded. Pakistan faces a much bigger threat than in 1971. That is not a mantra; that is a fact. Obeying America or the General would not make the threat disappear.
In the same speech he said he could take off his uniform any time but he would not do so because it is national interest. He did not reveal what that interest was? According to the law and rules of Pakistan, he should have retired a long time ago when he completed his tenure of three years as COAS.
If any national interest is served by the retired not retiring, he should let us know; the rest of us (retired generals) are just as eager to discard the civvies if it serves a national interest. The fact is that his continuing in uniform makes it possible to demonise Pakistan as a military dictatorship. If he believes that he is the sole interface with America and serves national interest in consequence, he labours under two misconceptions. One, America has many interfaces but he is the one with the Army that the enemies of Pakistan have sought to demonise as the 'rogue army' in the past and would do so again. General Musharraf provides local rationale and support for the future international demonisation campaign. Two, America never hesitates to betray its erstwhile friends when it does not need them. The list of 'betrayed by the US' is long; Saddam Hussain is only their latest victim.
I am reminded of late General Shaukat Riza who used to say: when a military dictator comes to power he says, " the people do not know what is good for them; I know what is good for them" ; but they all end up saying, " I am good for them". I was one of those who welcomed the take over by General Musharraf after a pathetic game of musical chairs between BB and NS. I say with regret that Musharraf is no different to the proverbial dictator characterised so well by the late soldier intellectual. In every speech he makes he praises himself for saving Pakistan in (three) crises. The first two crises, he says, were economic and he saved Pakistan by deploying Shaukat Aziz. In the third crisis he saved Pakistan himself by violating the international law, allowed the use of Pakistan's territory to invade Afghanistan that installed an anti Pakistan government in Kabul. The 'ungrateful' nation is begging him to stop saving Pakistan and step down. He is already showing signs of having caught the 'foot in the mouth' disease. In an address to the troops, he said that he forced India to withdraw without a fight by threat of use of 'unconventional' war. This led to an uproar in India. He should know better than anyone else that India deployed its armed forces on our borders on America's suggestion and withdrew when it was denied permission to invade.
Apart from Israel, Zionists and Neo-Conservatives in the US, every human being on our planet is alarmed that the invasion being planned by the USA and UK would not be a war; the disparity of strength between Iraq and the forces being assembled against it is so great that it would be a massacre on an unprecedented scale. It is bow and arrow against guns once again that made Indian race extinct in North America. Comparing the coming conflict with War with Communism or even the Crusades is grossly misleading. It is not a religious or an ideological conflict; it is a genocidal war to empty countries of people whose territory is coveted. It entails bombing at such an extensive scale that even those with nothing more lethal than a stare are legitimate targets. It is not an accident that the only allies of America in this war are India and Israel. America did not include the freedom fighters of Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya in its list of targets as terrorists in a fit of stupor or rage. Zionists and Neo-Conservatives are still a minority in America and they have to enlist the countries where genocide of Muslims is ongoing with majority support for it to be sustained world-wide.
The countries in the Triangle of Evil are joined by their objective as well as methods. They have concluded from the failure to crush resistance in Palestine and Kashmir that the use of force was too little. Afghanistan has established the precedence for the use of precision bombing from high altitude to fight terrorists that cannot be located or found. Iraq would set the precedence that any reason is good enough for invading a country that cannot fight back.
Most Western political observers believe that the invasion of Iraq is inevitable. They say if Saddam Hussain was spared once again, Iran and Iraq would both become nuclear powers able to deter the invasion of their territory. From the security of invulnerability, they would threaten Western interests in the region. The opposite argument is equally convincing. The invasion of Iraq would not eliminate threats to Western assets and interests. On the contrary, spread of asymmetrical war into new areas with new weapons and tactics would lead to massive increase in insecurity. The elimination of WMD from Iraq and later other countries like North Korea through the UN would be more thorough and less destabilising and costly. Many countries Argentina, Brazil and South Africa - have abandoned their nuclear weapons programmes upon elimination of threats or obtaining self-determination. That is the route to irreversible nuclear disarmament. Naming countries as the Axis of Evil (Iraq, Iran and North Korea) has the opposite effect. This was seen as a sort of an ultimatum that made a powerful case for the three states to equip themselves with nuclear weapons. Most European countries, particularly Germany, believe that the strategy of the Bush Administration has been counter-productive; it has destabilised the vital region of the Middle East and increased tension and insecurity world-wide.
The British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, endorses the Neo-Conservative view of war in Iraq. He asserts that the invasion is justified because it would set a new precedence to recognise the right of the super power to eliminate WMD pre-emptively to allow it to secure the submission of any and every state by the use of the awesome power of new precision guided conventional weapons. He believes that diplomacy should be used more effectively so that the need to wage war should be reduced as much as possible because it is economically destabilising. He believes that diplomacy (threats and blackmail) should be employed to keep the Muslim World divided and unable to articulate an effective response. He believes that Muslim public opinion should be assuaged with promises to address popular causes and reiterating that their war is not against Islam - merely against terrorists and rogue states. He has initiated action to shorten the list of rogue Muslim states and hosted Syrian President Asad (ex rogue) at an official visit to the UK. He has also been promoting the two-state solution for Palestine. As Robert Fisk pointed out, it is not because of a change of heart, it is because he feels it is vital to have a few Arab states in the force invading Iraq.
Carrots are being hung out to help Arab and Muslims rulers to assuage their people. This is only temporary. Sticks would be out as soon as the fighting phase of the invasion is over. Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - the targets of America after it has dealt with Iraq - have the need as well the ability to articulate the response of the Ummah. Iran is active but is hemmed in by its being named in the Axis of Evil. The role assigned to General Musharraf is to keep Pakistan out by giving an internal focus to the response of the Ummah. The clout of Pakistan would be focussed inwards dealing with the popular outrage by shooting at 'fundamentalist troublemakers'. Saudi Arabia has been put on the defensive by allegation of 'hijackers' being Saudi citizens and threat of a trillion-dollar lawsuit. In this environment, Prince Abdullah was invited to visit the US. He was feted in Washington as an ally in war on terrorism while the American press was in frenzy portraying Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi Islam as the most anti-West and extremist. The Prince was encouraged to offer his 'peace plan' for Palestine (short of UNSC Resolution 242) and doubly humiliated when it was rejected by Israel and ignored by every one else. After putting him in his place, the emirates of the Arabian Peninsula were coerced to fall in line. They merely requested that their consent to allow the use of their territory for the invasion should not be made public. Jordan is taken for granted and is not even asked. Turkey is still holding out but one cannot be sure, how long?
The USA is not depending entirely on General Musharraf to deny Pakistan a role in leading the fight back. They have the support of the Benazir and MQM. With PML (Q) happy with chanting the Musharraf mantra of "Pakistan First" Benazir accuses it being half hearted in crushing Kashmiri 'terrorists' and hunting Al-Qaeda members allegedly hiding in Pakistan. She is focussed on outdoing Musharraf in loyalty to the US. At the same time, she seeks to underline her party's credentials as superior to that of the MQM as an Anti Islamist party by not joining the 'right wing' government. No wonder the alarmed nation is flocking to the ranks of the MMA. Even that has failed to prevent General Musharraf from blatant efforts to tighten his hold over power. The nation is numb with fear - of dangers that are so obvious and the realisation that its new civil government is powerless. Pakistan courts the danger of slipping into anarchy and instability at a time when the Muslim world needs it to provide clear objectives and viable plans to fight the fight that is being imposed upon us. But miracles do happen! PML (Q) could find the courage to respond to public opinion and join the MMA in challenging the LFO. The military could force the President to submit to the law and get out of uniform and step down.
If the miracle did occur and the Prime Minister acted like the Chief Executive he is, what must he do? In fact, he can unite the nation and transform its morale in a week. He could: 1) sack the American moles in his administration, 2) declare opposition to the invasion of Iraq without a second UNSC Resolution, 3) ask the US to relocate the FBI teams to within the premises of the US Embassy and vacate the four bases in Pakistan that have no use except as 'red rag to the bull', 4) call for a Summit of OIC to pass a Resolution to deny the use of territory and air space of one member state for the invasion of another member and, 5) add the voice and argument of Pakistan to world-wide outcry against invasion of Iraq. Many would argue that such actions would earn the ire of America. Nothing could be farther from the truth. President Bush is not America. We would be acting as the true friends of America if we took action to preclude violation of international law.
We need to join the rest of the world in bringing home to America that invasion of Iraq would lead to protracted asymmetrical war. The UN route is the only viable route to elimination of WMD. America has to distance itself rather than embrace India and Israel. Their expansionist policies and projects are the main cause of conflict and war as well as the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It serves nobody's interest to make dire predictions of clash of civilisations or wars over oil and other natural resources. The world is too interdependent to sustain protracted asymmetrical war without courting the risk of the collapse of the economic system of the world.
General Musharraf is now a part of the problem, not the solution. His personal unpopularity provides the vehicle as well as the rationale for destabilising Pakistan. His continuing in uniform is against the national interest; his quiet exit from power is the dire need and the interest of Pakistan. The recent elections have brought unity and focus to the country. The General is threatening that. Pakistan is ready and able to play its part to fight the dangers faced by the Muslim Ummah. Instead of wasting time in answering accusations by Jewish and Indian media (which is the main tactics of the enemy) we should concentrate on the issue of war and peace. The peace of the world is in danger from USA and the UK threatening to invade Iraq. In international law, war is justified when a country is invaded or invasion is imminent. USA and UK have not been invaded by Iraq; no one sees an imminent
threat to them from Iraq. It is the interest of the whole world that no new precedence is set. It is not a problem of the Muslim World; it is the problem of the entire world. USA and UK threaten the whole edifice of international law on which peace and prosperity of the world is founded. Now that threat to Pakistan is manifest, we should drop the pretence of 'everything is fine' and seek the protection of International Law for Iraq and by implication for Pakistan as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia.