Will the Pakistani state prevail?

By S.P.SETH

Things are happening thick and fast in Pakistan, though not for the good of its people. The recent bombing in Lahore at a religious shine was heart-rending. The Sufi steam is the most heartening feature of Islam with a consensual sub-continental culture. To see this being attacked with such ferocity leaves one with a sense of utter helplessness. And coming as it does after senseless attacks on the Ahmediya community, it is felt as a terrible tragedy.

The question then is: what is the agenda of these extremist elements? These are obviously disparate elements united in their common hatred of all those branded as the enemy of Islam. And these include domestic as well as foreign “enemies”. These “enemies” are seen everywhere by the militants.

Inside the country, they constitute the majority of the people who have, by and large, stayed away from political parties aligned to religious extremism. The electoral history of Pakistan would show that these parties have always been in minority when it comes to voting, though they lately gained some traction because of the volatility of the situation within Pakistan.

If that is the case, why haven’t they been isolated and dealt with accordingly? This has to do with the country’s political and economic development since its creation. Although Pakistan has made some economic progress, it hasn’t filtered down in any appreciable way, if at all, to the mass of the people who need it the most. The feudal class still wields political power, with an added layer of industrial barons.

Indeed, a symbiotic nexus developed between them, with the new industrial class at times wielding the baton both as feudal lords, and industrial barons. And on top are the military brass at times sharing power and, most often, sidelining the civilian political elite.

What it means is that the clerical establishment of the country has often felt left out of the political equation. That wasn’t a bad thing since their electoral weight was minimal. But as self-appointed guardians of the country’s Islamic character, the clerical establishment believes that Pakistan has lost its way. The Islamist parties have hammered this message all through.

As Pakistan made its way into the eighties, two things happened. First: having got rid of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the late-seventies, General Zia-ul-Haq made his political base among the country’s religious orthodoxy. He promulgated ordinances to legitimize some outdated laws, and won favor with the clerical establishment and many ordinary people who believe in the sanctity of old Islamic injunctions. It changed the character of Pakistan’s polity. It also started to introduce a certain religious fervor in the lower and middle ranks of the military.

These internal developments coincided with Pakistan’s induction as a US ally to beef up the Afghan Mujahidin’s armed struggle to expel the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. Pakistan became the conduit for funneling US arms into Afghanistan. Apart from being a national struggle, the Afghan Mujahidin’s military campaign was also a crusade of sorts against the godless Soviet Union. And the Americans found its religious overtones quite useful as a motivating factor in its Cold War with the Soviet Union.

Zia-ul-Haq’s attempts to make Pakistan into a crypto religious state mingled with the US anti-Soviet strategy in Afghanistan. With the US as Pakistan’s major ally and the source of its large military and economic aid, such intermingling of their interests gave Zia great latitude within the country. In other words, Zia’s internal and external policy was greatly influenced by the dictates of US prescriptions for Afghanistan.

The Mujahidin’s armed struggle against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan seemed too successful, with the Soviet Union forced to withdraw. It emphasized that it was possible to defeat a powerful enemy by the deployment of irregular and highly motivated (especially with religious overtones) forces. Which would have consequences later in terms of the terrorist threat.

For Pakistan the results of the Afghan war, and the subsequent civil war in the country, were mixed. On the positive side, the Pakistani establishment was happy to have a friendly Taliban government in power. This was supposed to give Pakistan defense in depth against a military threat from India.

Pakistani intelligence had also established close contacts with the Taliban at different levels, as well as (presumably) with foreign (mostly Arab) elements that had thronged to fight with the Afghan Mujahidin against the Soviet Union. Another important segment of these volunteers were some Pakistani nationals fighting on the Afghan side. With the Soviets out of the picture and the Cold War coming to an end, all these elements suddenly found themselves out of their moral crusade.

Not long after, the Arab volunteers (with Osama bin Laden at the helm) found refuge with the new Taliban government in Afghanistan. And they started planning a global crusade against the United States, encouraged by their successes against the Soviet Union. Which led to the spectacular attack on the World Trade Centre in New York by ramming aircraft into the multi-storey building and killing about 3000 people. It was a dramatic announcement of a global terror campaign against the United States and its allies, with the avowed purpose of eventually creating an Islamic Caliphate.

Instead of providing strategic depth in Afghanistan under a friendly Taliban government, Pakistan ended up being a frontline state of the US war against the Afghan Taliban. Where it still is.

However, the most insidious result of all this for Pakistan has been the outgrowth of its own Taliban movement which seeks to subvert the Pakistani state and replace it with a Pakistani-version of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Apparently, there are close links between the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban, as a good number of them have been the product of the madrassas in Pakistan.

By encouraging extremist religious elements as a strategic tool in Afghanistan, and against India, Pakistan spawned the Taliban (both in Afghanistan and within Pakistan) and other extremist elements. When the Pakistani state sought to dissociate itself from these elements and then turned against them under US pressure, the intricate linkages between them and some state and military instrumentalities were already too deeply embedded to make a clean break. There is a sense that these elements might still be useful after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The point though is that these forces (now extending their sway into Punjab and its capital, Lahore) have acquired their own momentum. Through terror they seem determined to make the state do their bidding than the other way around. In this tug of war, Pakistani people are increasingly becoming a hostage of both sides.

Will the state prevail? The problem is that the Pakistani establishment is not only fractious, but is given to adhocism. And though many people would like some semblance of security and economic opportunities, they are not enamored of their rulers. Indeed, many people regard them as self-serving and corrupt, engaged in their own power games. There is, therefore, widely prevailing apathy. Against this backdrop, the Taliban alternative, invoking a state based on Islamic precepts and doctrines, might not seem all that bad to the common man with deep faith in his religion.

Pakistan thus finds itself in a state of flux. And the state, such as it is, lacks the will power and the unity of purpose to go after the militants.

Israel remains smug and arrogant

By S.P.SETH

Israel’s response to the international outcry over the killing of nine Turkish peace activists aboard Mavi Marmara, carrying relief supplies for the besieged Gaza Strip, has been a combination of tactical flexibility while maintaining strategic rigidity. Tactically, it has agreed to modify the blockade to allow in essential civilian items into the city. But strategically, the blockade will remain in place “to prevent the inflow of weapons and war material.”

Because, otherwise, according to Prime Minister Netanyahu, Hamas would turn Gaza into an “Iranian port”. The message to the Western world is that Israel is the sentinel of the Western world against the dreaded ‘nuclear’ Iran, which might soon rain missiles not only on Israel but on Europe as well.

In effect, Israeli action doesn’t mean much because the Gaza city will still be at its mercy. It might at any time choke off its supplies at its whim. Israel will still be the sole determinant of what goes in and what goes out. For instance, all the essential supplies for Gaza will only be routed through Israel. Not surprisingly, the Hamas didn’t find Israeli-announced partial lifting of the blockade satisfying. They “want a real lifting of the siege, not window dressing.”

At another level, Israel has sought to befuddle the issue of an international investigation into raiding the peace flotilla, and killing nine Turkish peace activists. It has announced an internal investigation, with two international observers. But the observers will have no say in the conduct of the inquiry by a panel of three Israelis. And it gets worse. This investigation will also look into the conduct of peace activists, though they alone are the victims of fatalities by Israeli commandos.

In the circumstances, one might as well predict the conclusions of the Israeli investigation. It is likely to blame the peace activists for breaching the blockade against prior warnings and following it up with attacks on the commandos, forcing them to act in self-defense. The internal inquiry, therefore, makes Israel both a judge as well as jury. This, by any standards of jurisprudence, is unacceptable.

One lesson Israel has learnt from the international outcry over its piracy on the high seas is that in its dealings with the Obama administration, it must try to harmonize its actions with the United States. In the past, whenever Israel has come under international criticism, particularly in the United Nations, the United States has shielded it from censure or sanctions. But this time its arrogant cowboy syndrome of running amuck wasn’t appreciated in Washington. The US made two observations on the raid and the Gaza blockade. First, it said that an investigation was warranted in the killings of the peace activists. Second: it observed that the blockade of Gaza was unsustainable.

Even though Israel has generally been dismissive of international opinion rubbishing it as biased and anti-Semitic, it couldn’t do the same with mild criticism from the United States. That would leave them with no political cover. Hence, the Netanyahu government went around hysterically to elicit Washington’s approval of its remedial action to somehow deal with the situation. And the US was on course to provide political cover by approving the inclusion of two observers as fulfilling its international dimension. However, this hasn’t silenced the critics. Turkey, for instance, is insistent on an international investigation.

At another level, more and more activists in other countries are reportedly planning their own flotillas to break Israeli blockade. There are reports that an all-female boat, named Virgin Mary, might be heading toward Gaza. The Guardian newspaper reported some days ago that another aid ship named after Naji al-Ali, a murdered Palestinian cartoonist, might soon be taking relief supplies with 50 journalists and 25 European volunteers, including members of the European parliament. A heartening feature is that the peace activists come from all backgrounds, nationalities and religions, a heartening example of common humanity that we all share.

The international outcry over the killing of nine Turkish activists had Israel spooked. One retired army general opined in an Israeli newspaper that, “The long-term goal of this war [by a coalition of disparate media outlets and other civilian organizations] is to remove the state of Israel from the map of the world, or at least, to cause the state of Israel to cease to be a sovereign Jewish state.” How this will be achieved by a bunch of peace volunteers and their supporters is left unclear!

However, since drumming up some support for the partial lifting of blockade of Gaza, Netanyahu is feeling a bit more confident. We had the spectacle of the politically dead Tony Blair resurrected as the special Middle East envoy for the quartet of the United Nations, the United States, Russia and the European Union, to legitimize Israel’s action. The British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said that it was a step in the right direction, while still safeguarding Israel’s legitimate security needs.

The most welcome for Israel has been the US endorsement, with President Obama now likely to grant Netanyahu a White House meeting to push the Israeli-Palestinian peace process (without, of course, the Hamas). It will most likely also include a photo opportunity to show that Netanyahu is no longer on the outer with the White House.

Netanyahu indeed seems to think that Israel’s partial lifting of the blockade would rob Hamas of its ability to accuse Israel of harming Gaza’s civilian population. He believes that, “Our friends around the world are standing behind our decision and providing international legitimacy for the continuation of military blockade on Hamas.”

This is the kind of smugness and arrogance that has characterized Israeli policy over the years. Will they get away with more of the same? Not if the Palestinians can build on the humanitarian support they have received lately.

Israel: Piracy on the High Seas

By S.P.SETH

Israel has created a hornet’s nest by landing its naval commandos’ on the peace flotilla carrying peace activists and supplies for the beleaguered Gaza Strip. The Israeli blockade of Gaza has caused untold sufferings on Gaza’s 1.5 million besieged people. In the process of raiding Mavi Marmara, its soldiers have killed nine and injured 30 civilians on board this ship.

Israel contends that its commandos acted in self-defense when pounced upon by the civilians on board with sticks, knives, metal rods and a few pistols snatched from the soldiers. Be that as it may, it was certainly a case of overkill on the part of professional naval commandos to use lethal force against civilians on a relief mission for Gaza’s beleaguered residents.

The flotilla was on high seas entitled to innocent passage under international law. Even by Israel’s own admission, the only firearms that peace activists might have used against its soldiers were those snatched from its commandos. Which would mean that these civilians didn’t come prepared for any armed confrontation. In the circumstances, they tried to improvise as best as they could when faced with lethal force. They weren’t anticipating that the Israelis would be so stupid as to stage, what looked like, piracy on the high seas, with hostages taken and cargo confiscated.

As one Australian columnist wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald, “The Israeli attack on the Gaza freedom flotilla was an act of lethal stupidity. Lethal for its victims, stupid for Israel...” Like the columnist, Mike Carlton, the flotilla’s peace volunteers too didn’t think that Israel would be that stupid. But arrogance breeds stupidity. With the unswerving support of the United States, Israel has come to believe that it is the real superpower, and it doesn’t need to follow international law. The United States has always saved it from its aggression, excesses and follies and it is quite confident that it will do the same now.

However, lately, there has been some minor change in the situation. First, of course, is Obama’s election as US President. He has been keen on a making a new start with the Islamic world, as articulated in his speech in Cairo, not long after he became the country’s President. But, unfortunately, there hasn’t been much headway in that direction. Israel has even managed to effectively veto Obama’s initiative to start the peace process between it and Palestine for a two state solution.

The fact of the matter is that Israel is not interested in an independent and sovereign state of Palestine. The charter of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party clearly rejects the idea of a separate Palestinian state. It says, “The government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state…” Their only accommodation of Palestinian aspirations is that “they can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.” And it elaborates, “Thus, for example, in matters of foreign affairs, security, immigration and ecology their activity shall be limited in accordance with imperatives of Israel’s existence, security and national needs.”

However, even with Obama’s limited and, so far, ineffective, initiative to involve Israel in a dialogue with the softer (Fatah) version of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, there is virtually no forward movement. The Hamas in Gaza is, of course, is excluded from any such proposed peace dialogue, as it has been dubbed a terrorist organization.

The irony is that President Obama, even with his extremely cautious advocacy of a peace dialogue, has come to be regarded by many Israelis, and some in the Israeli government, as anti-Semite and pro-Arab. Therefore, even though President Obama, like other US Presidents before him, is always assuring Israel of US commitment to its security, he is somehow not considered in the same league as his predecessors. From the viewpoint of Israel’s paranoia, this is an important negative change for them.

Another important change, lately, has been a gradual shift in Turkey’s policy in regard to the Gaza issue. In fact, a Turkish charity has played a leading role in organizing the “peace flotilla”. Turkey is a long-standing member of the Western alliance, and has been a close friend of Israel. Indeed, it was going to take part in joint military exercises along with Israel and Greece; now shelved by Turkey because of the killings of its citizens by Israeli commandos. Turkey copped all the nine fatalities (one of the nine killed was an American citizen of Turkish descent) in the Israeli raid on the flotilla. Turkish-Israeli relationship, strained already over Palestine, is now gravely damaged after the killings of its citizens on Mavi Marmara.

Turkey has been considered by the United States over the years as a model Muslim majority state worthy of emulation by other Islamic countries. But with the Turkish-Israeli relationship in a free fall, the United States finds itself in a terrible quandary, having to tread delicately between its two close allies. The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has said that the Gaza blockade is unsustainable and that an investigation into the flottila tragedy is warranted. It is a change of sorts for the United States, though not with much content in the absence of a concrete follow up plan and concerted pressure on Israel.

Israel lives in a world of its own as an eternal victim, even when it is the perpetrator. Anyone and everyone critical of the state of Israel is either anti-Semite, an enemy of Israel or a terrorist. By this definition, all its Arab neighbors are actual or potential enemies. In this sense, Israel has a security problem, unlike any other country. Which entitles them to special security provisions, like the possession of nuclear weapons as well as the occupation and settlement of neighboring Arab territories from where the security threat might arise.

From Israel’s viewpoint, the occupation of Palestine is, therefore, not only an imperative historical necessity because it was part of the Biblical Israel of 2000 years ago, but it is also a security imperative to keep the Biblical land safe. By this logic of forward defense, Israel might soon be laying claim to other Arab lands as part of its ongoing sacred mission. Israel, therefore, can’t understand why so many people in the world just get stuck with such peripheral issues, like the blockade of Gaza.

This is the crux of the problem. Israel has a larger than life image. The eternal victim wants to create an eternal kingdom with no known dangers lurking around. This is a state of mind and not ground-based reality. How it will eventually work, nobody can tell. But, in the meantime, it is incumbent to keep the pressure on for the lifting of Gaza blockade, as well as for a comprehensive settlement of the Palestinian issue.