|
Commanded to Deliver
By Omer bin Abdullah
23/09/2001
Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf's September 19, 2001 speech was a clear admission that he has orders he cannot bypass - to be at U.S. President George W. Bush's command. The tongue cannot lie and Bush, who had 10 minute chat with the once-derided self-proclaimed president Gen. Musharraf, declared that he had told the general that what was expected of him. The general put aside his commander's swagger and obeyed, dispatching his spymaster, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Gen. Mehmud who had returned from the U.S. on September 8th, to Kandahar on September 17th, to pick up Osama M. Bin Laden and deliver him to the U.S. - a request that was promptly denied.
Musharraf, once derided as a rapist of democracy, has been suddenly promoted as the guardian of freedom. In turn, the General's administration is doing its best to wrap in tinsel its capitulation before the U.S., and the jettisoning of its Afghan policy. Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz said, "The prospect of radically improved relations with the United States in particular could pay dividends as the country seeks to claw its way out of its current economic quagmire." Another report indicated that rivers of Afghan blood could fetch up to $3 billion for Pakistan, perhaps pay some of the interest on $43 billion owed by Pakistan.
According to White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, Bush employed a carrot-and-stick approach. "In different nations, the carrot may be bigger," Fleischer said. "In other nations, the stick may be bigger.''
Pakistan's business elite sees the current crisis as an excellent opportunity for Pakistan to get back on the right side of the U.S.
Aziz, however, acknowledged that U.S. military action against Afghanistan carried with it the risk of a short-term negative impact on the economy, adding that, in the long term, Pakistan would reap the benefits of siding with the world's biggest economy.
In order to overcome his lack of democratic credentials, Musharraf has not only consulted political leaders - ironically the same people that his brand of elections were to displace - and even retired generals and former bureaucrats. Perhaps on the basis of such meetings, Musharraf claims that only as much as 15% oppose his acceptance of the American diktat. This figure is ostensibly based on approval he has received from the many secular parties in Pakistan. However, the opposite may be true because near all of the endorsing parties are run by the elite who have stakes in foreign aid, a lure that this cooperation promises. The religious parties may not have much to show at the polls but they command a huge popular base and it is this mass that may pose a threat to the General's plans.
The Islamic elements are not only angered over the foreseeable destruction of a Muslim neighbor, but also at the choice of American weapons as many are interpreting the American claim that they have the technological capability to "smoke out" the Taliban or Osama out of their holes as a threat to use chemical or biological weapons in Afghanistan.
Although Bush attempted damage control by visiting a mosque, his reference to a "crusade" has raised fears that the new war could spark a "clash of civilizations" between Christians and Muslims, sowing fresh winds of hatred and mistrust. Also, the continuing vigilante attacks against Muslims and Muslim-like people in the U.S. only aggravate the situation.
Reports emanating from Pakistan suggest that "friend or foe?" was in effect the one-line question that Musharraf was posed by Bush when he was woken by a telephone call from Washington at midnight following attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Many Pakistanis see the ultimatum as arrogance and resent it. For his part, the General has tried to soften the tone of the demands made on him by telling the people that had he flinched from extending full support to Washington's endeavors, Pakistan's arch-foe India and the Muslim's nation common enemy, Tel Aviv, would have not only snapped at the deal, but would have also hit Pakistan. Not only that, a source quoted Musharraf as saying that his refusal would have jeopardized the country's "strategic installations," alluding to the precious nuclear program that was supposed to be a guarantee of the nation's self-reliance in defense.
Musharraf's explanations to the public concerning decisions made are irrelevant because he had limited choices as the U.S. administration wanted him to reply in definite terms, which he did. The change in Pakistan's Taliban policy has been warmly embraced by the country's secular elements, ever fearful that a Taliban spillover would come into Pakistan.
Perhaps only the intelligence community knows the real strength of Osama M. Bin Laden and his establishment, but it seems that constant play on his threat to the West may have served to make him a larger than life hero in the Muslim world.
There is also talk that the U.S. is extremely irritated with the Taliban regime because of its lack of cooperation in allowing U.S. oil companies access to gas in Turkmenistan across its borders.
An American-led assault may achieve its immediate objective, but there is a danger that it may also lead to an escalation and growth of more dissent movements.
The acceptance of U.S. demands has been easy for Gulf rulers because their publics already know that American troops are stationed within their borders, and of course, they are unaccustomed to dissent.
Saudi Arabia's rulers are ready to give the United States their support: they have oil revenue to consider and they already have U.S. bases on their territory. Saudi Arabia, however, observers say, is not as stable in its Islamic-Western double-act as it once was. It has felt the wrath of Islamic dissent within its borders before, and could do again.
In Iran, the U.S. hunt for the perpetrators of the tragedy holds both promise and threat. Power is finely balanced here too, between conservatives and reformers. The U.S. and Europe have wooed the reformers, but have had to tread with great care, lest they open the way to a new Islamic revolt.
Andrew Buncombe, Washington correspondent for the U.K. daily, The
Independent, wrote September 19th: "With the Stars and Stripes seemingly hanging from every other balcony and with people who believe they are at war issuing calls of 'God Bless America' every other minute, this is no time to step out of line. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution may ensure the right to free speech but, for now, it is easier - and safer - to keep quiet."
He added: "…America is a country united in the belief that it is the blameless victim. In the media, on the streets, in workplaces across the country and among politicians there is plenty of graphic talk about how these attacks were so casually inflicted, but there is very little discussion of why."
Many Muslims point out that if anything happens in Afghanistan, it will only upset Muslims all over the world and add another issue to their list of grievances. Osama is just a figurehead whom the media have made well known throughout the world. Should Osama be knocked out of contention then? Unless the malady that produces such characters is addressed in good measure, there will always be others willing to take his place.
Those who may replace Osama feel that the U.S. has still not realized its full responsibilities as the sole super-power and arbiter of the world. The prime requirement of this game is fairness and equality in treatment in addressing all political issues. So long as this continues to be overlooked, the concept of treating the world as a global village can be put on the shelf, for the downtrodden people of the world are just fed-up with being exploited for selfish geopolitical and strategic reasons.
The anger of the U.S. is currently too great for Washington to renounce the use of military force, while the regimes in the region are too fragile and too fearful or dependent to say no. One can only hope that good sense will prevail on all sides to bring about an equitable resolution to the conflict.
|
