The American bombing of terrorist bases in Afghanistan and a suspicious pharmaceutical factory in Sudan last week is significant in many ways. It demonstrates an unprecedented arrogance of power by the United States that clearly undermines international law. In the old days, the United States could bomb Muammar Gaddafi’s palace in Libya and claim it was acting legitimately against a declared and self-avowed terrorist state. The Americans could send helicopter gunships and commandoes into Iran and claim legal justification for trying to free American hostages held by that country. They could send the Marines into Haiti and insist that they had been “invited by democratic forces” to overthrow an inimical dictator in their backyard. Indeed, they could bomb Saddam Hussain’s 1.5 million strong army into submission and get away with it under a UN umbrella contrived expressly for the purpose.
But last week’s bombings go beyond such legal niceties. They are meant to warn that America is unilaterally willing and militarily able to legally strike out not only against rogue states and rogue governments bent on waging some form of war against the US but also illegally against “hostile” groups or “sites” in independent and sovereign states not at war with the US. That the Americans did so by violating Pakistani airspace merely adds insult to Pakistan while injuring Afghan and Sudanese sovereignty.
But there are other implications of the American bombings which are more unsettling. The attack on “Islamic” extremists based in Afghanistan who are overtly committed to waging “jihad” against America signals a hardening of American perceptions that the “war of the future” will be one in which “Islamic terrorism” world-wide will be the “number one enemy” of the West. Logically speaking, that would imply that “Islamic” extremist groups anywhere in the world, including Pakistan, who are bent on exporting “jihad” to the West, would be fair game for American retribution.
The significance of this conclusion should not be underestimated. Aimal Kansi and Ramzi Yusuf were handed over to the Americans by an able and willing government in Pakistan. But if the Harkat ul Mujahideen, Lashkar e Tayaba or any one of a number of “Islamic” extremist groups based in Pakistan who are today vowing “war” against the United States were to get into Osama bin Laden’s shoes, the Pakistan government would have to take action against them and extradite them to the United States or open itself up to the same sort of treatment meted out to the Afghan government. This would be nothing short of a “damned if Pakistan does and damned if Pakistan doesn’t” situation with far reaching domestic and international consequences.
The American “intervention” in Afghanistan is also fraught with other chilling possibilities. For one, it shows the way forward to other states which are also confronted with domestic terrorism inspired from bases in other countries. Might a belligerent Indian government not be emboldened at some stage in the future to emulate the American example by striking (hot pursuit?) at allegedly terrorist bases in Azad Kashmir? (The Indian government has been swift to forward the Americans a list of 21 such alleged camps in Afghanistan, 47 in Pakistan and 39 in Azad Kashmir.) The argument that India wouldn’t dare act in this fashion because Pakistan has nuclear weapons wouldn’t wash because Pakistan could hardly hit back with nuclear bombs and risk total annihilation. Nor, in the event, could Pakistan expect much sympathy from the West, given its current mood, by harping on the hackneyed theme of “freedom fighters” versus “terrorists” in Kashmir.
The Americans have demonstrated how squarely Pakistan lies in the eye of the gathering storm. Islamabad’s relations with Iran, Central Asia and Russia are bad because of its support to the “Islamic” Taleban. Its relations with India are worse because of its support to the “Islamic Mujahideen” in Kashmir. China does not share Pakistan’s enthusiasm for the “Islamic” Taleban and its support for the “Islamic” Kashmiri cause is wearing thin. After unveiling its nuclear prowess, Islamabad has found itself at odds with the United States and the West. Now the widespread fundamentalist howls of “revenge against America” on the streets of Pakistan are geared to raise hackles in every Western capital of the world. All that remains is for the Nawaz Sharif government to unfold an “Islamic Agenda” from the portals of the Presidency to confirm the West’s worst nightmare that Pakistan may be fast headed in the direction of being the newest rogue state on the scene.
The Nawaz Sharif government is in a most unfortunate situation, partly because of its own failings and inclinations but also because of the ideological baggage which the Pakistani state has carried over from the cold war era. It remains an article of faith for the Pakistani establishment that “Islamic” Pakistan’s security can only be propped up as long as “Hindu” India is retained as Pakistan’s “enemy number one”. From this it follows that India should be bled to death in Kashmir if Pakistan is to survive, irrespective of how many and what sort of militant “Islamic” Mujahideen groups are spawned inside Pakistan. From this it follows that Pakistan should not only have half a million men under arms imbued with some form of “Islamic” ideology but also an “Islamic” nuclear deterrent. From this it follows that 40% of Pakistan’s budget should be spent on defence, irrespective of the crippling burden on Pakistan’s economy. From this also follows the notion of “strategic depth” in Afghanistan, irrespective of the sort of “Islamic” regime which is necessitated in Kabul and irrespective of such a regime’s divisive societal impact within Pakistan. From this it follows that the more Pakistan’s society and economy crumble under the strains of false consciousness and ideology, the greater the need to clutch at “Islamic” straws in society and economy. Pakistan is in a vicious, self-perpetuating circle which is spinning out of the ambit of the world community.
It could, of course, have been very different. Pakistan could have been a modern Muslim state, strong, self-reliant and prosperous, at peace with itself, with its neighbours and with its trading partners, without abandoning its principled stands on either Kashmir or nuclear weapons. But that would have required its political leadership and national security establishment to demonstrate the vision and courage to chart a broad-minded consciousness for Pakistani society and an integrationist agenda for Pakistan’s economy. That the opposite has happened is nothing short of a historic tragedy. Can we salvage the situation?
It is going to be very difficult. After years of unbearable strain, the crumbling Pakistani economy is sending out desperate SOS signals not to the national security establishment, not to the Islamic parties or Mujahideen in Pakistan, but to the international Western community. If our political leadership and national security establishment refuse to heed the economy’s call for help by insisting on pursuing their bankrupt agendas, whether in Afghanistan or in India or within Pakistan, they will sign their own death warrants in time to come. Without the economy, stupid, there will be political anarchy instead of political stability and national demise instead of national security.
The way forward is through a bold and modern programme of national revival and societal cohesion which scuttles all the false demons of fundamentalism, sectarianism and ethnicity which we have conjured up. It is through a new definition of national security which doesn’t clutch at Islamic ideology. It is through an appropriate integration with the world economy rather than in splendid isolation from it.
Whether we like it or not, and however despicable the method they have chosen, the Americans have challenged us to stand up in our true colours and be counted in the community to which we wish to belong. There are two routes open to us. We can either all become part of an America-hating, West-bashing “Islamic civilisation” which eats grass and lives happily ever after in a rogue state whose nuclear weapons have been “taken out” and whose army has been “knocked out”, or we can become part of the moderate Muslim state our forefathers dreamed of building in the sub-continent half a century ago, with a vibrant economy, a united and creative society and a modern, affordable, professional army.