07-14-2009, 10:13 AM
Foreign policy foundations
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Qazi Hussain Ahmed
The foundation of US foreign policy rests on its national interest. To make the Americans change their foreign policy, it is necessary to persuade them that this change is in their own national interest. The ideology of modern nation states is founded not on concepts such as justice but on narrow self interest.
Allama Iqbal was bitterly opposed to this narrow concept of nationalism on the basis of language or ethnicity. His Farsi book, Masnavi Israr-o-Ramooz, focuses on the question of nationalism. In Israr-e-Khudi he focused on the character of an ideal Muslim individual whereas in the Masnavi he has argued about the place of an individual in a nation and the relations between an individual's selfhood and that of a nation. In opposing territorial nationalism, Iqbal says:
Aqda-e-qaumiat Muslim Kashood/Az watan aqqae ma hijrat namood.
In other words, our prophet Muhammad (PBUH) untied the knot of nationalism by performing Hijrat from his home. He left his home for the sake of his beliefs and faith. Iqbal criticizes the League of Nations thus:
Makke ne diya khaak-e- Geneva ko ye paigham/ Jamiat aqwam ke Jamiat Adam.
In other words, mankind's problems will not be solved by forming a unity of nations. In such a body, every nation's representative would act out of his nation's interests which would prevent him from thinking about the good of all humankind. To act for the common good it is necessary to transcend narrow national, ethnic, and linguistic prejudices just as the Prophet (PBUH) taught us to unite in the worship of a single God.
Soon after the creation of Pakistan, those responsible for framing the country's foreign and defence policies decided to make cooperation with the USA the cornerstone of these policies. To achieve that end, they decided to exploit Pakistan's geographical location and Islamic worldview to portray the country to the Americans as a bastion against communism. The foundations of this policy were laid by Liaquat Ali Khan, Sir Zafarullah Khan, General Ayub Khan and Iskander Mirza. American aid was considered as a means of making Pakistan strong vis a vis India and to make the country stand on its own feet. India, meanwhile, decided to follow a policy of non-alignment towards the US and the USSR. Eventually, India emerged as a leader of the non-aligned bloc and made a name for itself as a powerful independent voice on the world stage. In contrast, Pakistan gradually became a virtual satellite of the US. Meanwhile, the US kept changing its attitude towards Pakistan according to the changing scenario. When India kept itself aloof from Washington, the US patronized Pakistan. By joining CENTO and SEATO, Pakistan allied itself totally with the US and the western bloc. However, the US continued to seek the cooperation of India with its huge population and resources.
Pak-US relations, meanwhile, continue to witness ups and downs during different periods. During General Zia's rule, the US got the opportunity to use Pakistan to humiliate the USSR in Afghanistan. For this reason, the US was even willing to overlook Pakistan's nuclear programme to some extent and restored its aid which had earlier been blocked in order to penalize Pakistan for its nuclear ambitions and to encourage the return of democracy Pak-US relations once again went through a rocky patch after the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan. The Mujahideen, who the US had earlier encouraged with the help of Pakistan to prop up the resistance to the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, were soon seen as a potential threat to US interests when they made Afghanistan a base for anti-US activities and for allowing a foothold to Al-Qaeda.
On September 11, 2001, a devastating incident took place in the US. Several aircraft were hijacked from various US airports simultaneously and attacks staged on symbols of America's economic power, the Twin Towers in New York, the nerve-centre of its military, the Pentagon, and on the White House. America blamed the attacks on Al-Qaeda and in order to crush the organization, the US decided to attack Afghanistan. Once again, America needed Pakistan for this and Islamabad, in keeping with its old habits and basic policy, was ready and willing to cooperate. So much so that General Pervez Musharraf did not even feel the need to consult anyone before agreeing. After all, the US had sought cooperation and it was not in the make-up of the Pakistani leadership to deny this request. From day one, it has been our rulers' main aim to seek such cooperation. But this time it was neither Pakistan's geographical location nor its Islamic ideology that was its main strength. This time it was support for the US war on terror that was on top of the agenda. General Pervez Musharraf immediately agreed to become a front-ranking ally in this war.
Today, the Pakistani nation is asking questions about who the main foe is in this war on terror. Is it those Mujahideen that Pakistan had itself gathered from all over the globe and organized, and who were motivated in the name of Islam to fight against the Soviet communists and for the Muslims of Afghanistan? When they were fighting against the Russian occupation they were Mujahideen. The Pakistani people and army were fighting a jihad with their Afghan brethren. When the Soviets were replaced by the western powers and NATO several years later, the Afghan people continued to struggle against foreign intervention. The sympathies of the Pakistani people are with them. What argument does the army and the government have for becoming a frontline US ally against those resisting the occupation?
By fighting someone else's war, today our army is engaged in a conflict with the madressahs, the ulema and the tribals of their own country. This is giving an opportunity to our enemies to foment terrorism and strife in the country. American author Stephen Cohen has said in his recent book that when the last Al-Qaeda member and Taliban are no longer in Pakistan, US aid to Pakistan will also come to a halt. That is why the Pakistan government and army would like to prolong this war. But Pakistanis themselves are dying in this war. The Pakistan Army and the people are killing each other in this war. Do our rulers have the courage to rethink the policy of being staunch allies of the US in its war before we reach the brink of destruction?
The writer is former amir, Jamaat-i-Islami.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Qazi Hussain Ahmed
The foundation of US foreign policy rests on its national interest. To make the Americans change their foreign policy, it is necessary to persuade them that this change is in their own national interest. The ideology of modern nation states is founded not on concepts such as justice but on narrow self interest.
Allama Iqbal was bitterly opposed to this narrow concept of nationalism on the basis of language or ethnicity. His Farsi book, Masnavi Israr-o-Ramooz, focuses on the question of nationalism. In Israr-e-Khudi he focused on the character of an ideal Muslim individual whereas in the Masnavi he has argued about the place of an individual in a nation and the relations between an individual's selfhood and that of a nation. In opposing territorial nationalism, Iqbal says:
Aqda-e-qaumiat Muslim Kashood/Az watan aqqae ma hijrat namood.
In other words, our prophet Muhammad (PBUH) untied the knot of nationalism by performing Hijrat from his home. He left his home for the sake of his beliefs and faith. Iqbal criticizes the League of Nations thus:
Makke ne diya khaak-e- Geneva ko ye paigham/ Jamiat aqwam ke Jamiat Adam.
In other words, mankind's problems will not be solved by forming a unity of nations. In such a body, every nation's representative would act out of his nation's interests which would prevent him from thinking about the good of all humankind. To act for the common good it is necessary to transcend narrow national, ethnic, and linguistic prejudices just as the Prophet (PBUH) taught us to unite in the worship of a single God.
Soon after the creation of Pakistan, those responsible for framing the country's foreign and defence policies decided to make cooperation with the USA the cornerstone of these policies. To achieve that end, they decided to exploit Pakistan's geographical location and Islamic worldview to portray the country to the Americans as a bastion against communism. The foundations of this policy were laid by Liaquat Ali Khan, Sir Zafarullah Khan, General Ayub Khan and Iskander Mirza. American aid was considered as a means of making Pakistan strong vis a vis India and to make the country stand on its own feet. India, meanwhile, decided to follow a policy of non-alignment towards the US and the USSR. Eventually, India emerged as a leader of the non-aligned bloc and made a name for itself as a powerful independent voice on the world stage. In contrast, Pakistan gradually became a virtual satellite of the US. Meanwhile, the US kept changing its attitude towards Pakistan according to the changing scenario. When India kept itself aloof from Washington, the US patronized Pakistan. By joining CENTO and SEATO, Pakistan allied itself totally with the US and the western bloc. However, the US continued to seek the cooperation of India with its huge population and resources.
Pak-US relations, meanwhile, continue to witness ups and downs during different periods. During General Zia's rule, the US got the opportunity to use Pakistan to humiliate the USSR in Afghanistan. For this reason, the US was even willing to overlook Pakistan's nuclear programme to some extent and restored its aid which had earlier been blocked in order to penalize Pakistan for its nuclear ambitions and to encourage the return of democracy Pak-US relations once again went through a rocky patch after the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan. The Mujahideen, who the US had earlier encouraged with the help of Pakistan to prop up the resistance to the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, were soon seen as a potential threat to US interests when they made Afghanistan a base for anti-US activities and for allowing a foothold to Al-Qaeda.
On September 11, 2001, a devastating incident took place in the US. Several aircraft were hijacked from various US airports simultaneously and attacks staged on symbols of America's economic power, the Twin Towers in New York, the nerve-centre of its military, the Pentagon, and on the White House. America blamed the attacks on Al-Qaeda and in order to crush the organization, the US decided to attack Afghanistan. Once again, America needed Pakistan for this and Islamabad, in keeping with its old habits and basic policy, was ready and willing to cooperate. So much so that General Pervez Musharraf did not even feel the need to consult anyone before agreeing. After all, the US had sought cooperation and it was not in the make-up of the Pakistani leadership to deny this request. From day one, it has been our rulers' main aim to seek such cooperation. But this time it was neither Pakistan's geographical location nor its Islamic ideology that was its main strength. This time it was support for the US war on terror that was on top of the agenda. General Pervez Musharraf immediately agreed to become a front-ranking ally in this war.
Today, the Pakistani nation is asking questions about who the main foe is in this war on terror. Is it those Mujahideen that Pakistan had itself gathered from all over the globe and organized, and who were motivated in the name of Islam to fight against the Soviet communists and for the Muslims of Afghanistan? When they were fighting against the Russian occupation they were Mujahideen. The Pakistani people and army were fighting a jihad with their Afghan brethren. When the Soviets were replaced by the western powers and NATO several years later, the Afghan people continued to struggle against foreign intervention. The sympathies of the Pakistani people are with them. What argument does the army and the government have for becoming a frontline US ally against those resisting the occupation?
By fighting someone else's war, today our army is engaged in a conflict with the madressahs, the ulema and the tribals of their own country. This is giving an opportunity to our enemies to foment terrorism and strife in the country. American author Stephen Cohen has said in his recent book that when the last Al-Qaeda member and Taliban are no longer in Pakistan, US aid to Pakistan will also come to a halt. That is why the Pakistan government and army would like to prolong this war. But Pakistanis themselves are dying in this war. The Pakistan Army and the people are killing each other in this war. Do our rulers have the courage to rethink the policy of being staunch allies of the US in its war before we reach the brink of destruction?
The writer is former amir, Jamaat-i-Islami.