| |
View
Point Abid
Ullah Jan
Crushed Between Two Extremes
Note
the difference. The news used to be: "FBI officials were
also accompanying the raiding party." The news to day is:
"Officials of Pakistan secret agencies were also accompanying
their FBI counterparts."(1)
This is how invisible occupations work for the empire, without
going to war, without going around the UN Security Council, without
provoking millions in protests around the world and without going
through the post-war mess. Just have a Karazi like figure, run
the country and that figure head will "also accompany"
the US team in running the country.
Those who still doubt that Pakistan is as occupied as Afghanistan
and Iraq, must read another story on the front page of the same
issue of the Nation to see how funds are now being showered on
the same dictator with whom the US could not do "business
as usual." Now that he moved from the status of a "dictator"
to "viceroy" another kind of business unusual is unveiling
before our eyes. Interestingly, a rare $ 4 billion package of
financial assistance is likely to be negotiated with him during
his forthcoming visit to Washington.(2)
Literal meaning of occupation is taking or maintaining possession
of a country by military conquest. However, the line between independence
and occupation is getting finer with each passing day in the 21st
century. The cost of weakness is now an occupation without a military
conquest. Pakistan has, unfortunately, become the first victim
of this new kind of occupation -- a model of "failed state"
perfectly controlled from outside with curtailed sovereignty and
limited freedoms.
Despite our government's wholehearted sacrifice of all principles
of justice and norms of independent states, American analysts,
such as Leon T. Hadar of Cato Institute, consider Pakistan "with
its dictatorship and failed economy" a "reluctant Partner"
and a "potential long term adversary."(3) Therefore,
occupation is a must and here we are: fully occupied. Like any
other occupied territory, dictatorship is in full swing in Pakistan.
Hundreds of people, pointed out by the intelligence of occupation
forces, are rounded up on daily basis and our agencies simply
"accompany them," might be only as interpreters.
Illegal detentions and extraditions are on the rise. More than
a dozen non-government organisations with any link to Muslim countries,
or Arabic words in its names, have been closed down. Newspapers
report that guns and "computers have been recovered"
from these organisations, as if computers have suddenly become
illegal commodities. Hundreds of additional FBI and CIA agents
are on their way to Pakistan to join the thousands of foreign
agents who are already spying on occupied people.
There are no signs of independence at all. We cannot prepare our
budgets without an approval from international lending agencies.
We cannot conduct any investigation without assistance of FBI
agents. Our agencies cannot operate any longer, except in coordination
with FBI. Until last year, we had to detain every person from
the Middle East as a potential terrorist and it was up to the
US agencies to decide their fate. Now, the US agents lead our
agencies into the arrest of anyone on their list. The morbid dread
of Al-Qaeda is being used to crackdown on religion and to further
reduce our freedoms as citizens of an independent state. There
is no open discussion on any aspect of the ever-intensifying occupation.
We have accepted it as a daily routine.
We are ensuring American "strategic interests" in everything
we do, from implementation of American directions on religious
institutions to spying on citizens and banning everything that
may promote the spiritual message of Islam. The government officials
work round the clock to ensure interpretation of Pakistan's occupation
as crisis management. It is rather becoming a cause of the future
crisis.
Al-Qaeda's threat has been blown out of proportions to intensify
occupation in what a senior British diplomat Robert Cooper calls
failed states in the post-modern era. Full text of Cooper's essay
appeared in the Observer on April 07, 2002. Main characteristics
of such occupations described by Cooper are: the breaking down
of the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs of the
occupied states; "mutual" interference in domestic affairs
and "mutual" surveillance (the word "mutual"
is used to deceive the weak as Pakistan cannot even imagine interference
in domestic affairs of the US, let alone surveillance); and the
growing irrelevance of borders when comes to safeguarding interest
of the strong.
In 21st century occupations, there are no security threats in
the traditional sense; that is to say, the powerful do not consider
invading the weak. Going to war is rather a sign of policy failure.
Mr. Cooper elaborates: "The challenge to the post-modern
world is to get used to the idea of double standards. Among ourselves,
we operate on the basis of laws and open cooperative security.
But when dealing with more old-fashioned kinds of states outside
the post-modern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the
rougher methods of an earlier era - force, pre-emptive attack,
deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still
live in the nineteenth century world of every state for itself.
Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in
the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle."
So the laws of jungle are being applied in occupied states like
Pakistan and Afghanistan. This new form of occupation is acceptable
to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. In the western
eyes it is an occupation that "aims to bring order and organisation
but which rests today on the voluntary principle or people like
Musharraf coming forward and offering services. If there were
no Musharrafs and Mubaraks, it is not just soldiers that come
from the international community; it is police, judges, prison
officers, central bankers and others. Kosova is an example where
elections are organised and monitored by the Organisation for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Local police are financed
and trained by the UN. As auxiliaries to this effort - in many
areas indispensable to it - are over a hundred NGOs.
We must debate and resist occupation of Pakistan under the pretext
of dismantling Al-Qaeda's network. What kind of a clearinghouse
Osama has created for terrorist adventures that is so hard to
dismantle? It seems Al-Qaeda and Osama have become the one-size-fits-all
scapegoat for every action that all the world's aggrieved peoples
take against America. And we might be tempted to believe this,
if it weren't for the fact that some of America's own citizens,
such as Timothy McVeigh and Theodore Kaczynski, have proved that
one need not be a Muslim to perform such acts of terror.
Freedom comes with a heavy price tag. Under British occupation,
Benjamin Franklin observed in 1755 that those "who would
give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." You don't abandon the
rule of law, principles of justice and hard won independence simply
because America is angry. Pakistan is strong enough at least to
handle its internal affairs within the precious boundaries of
the law and the abandoned Constitution. If new rules are needed
for dignified interaction with the super-power or detention and
extradition of suspects, then by all means establish new rules.
But you don't leave your self at the mercy of American will without
any policy and principles. Of what use is our assistance in the
"war on terrorism" if it puts our very freedoms and
independence at stake. Our assistance should not become cooperation
for occupation. If we are not defending our freedom, then we are
just blowing stale smoke rings of hypocrisy when we raise our
hand and pledge to defend sovereignty and independence of the
"Islamic" Republic of Pakistan.
End Notes:
. "Two al-Qaeda suspects arrested in City," The Nation,
Pakistan, Front Page, June 13, 2003. See: http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/June-2003/13/main/top13.asp
2. Absar Alam, "$4b US assistance likely," The Nation,
Pakistan, Front Page, June 13, 2003. http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/June-2003/13/main/top3.asp
3. Policy Analysis, No 436, May 8, 2002
|
|
