[sacw] SACW #2 (17 Oct. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #2.
17 October 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

------------------------------------------

#1. On the visit by US Sec of State to Pakistan (M. B. Naqvi)
#2. In Search of a Chromosome Bomb (Vinod Raina)
#3. A Prayer (Belinda Subraman)
#4. Offers of Peace (Nirmalangshu Mukherji)

________________________

#1.

Karachi October 15

MB Naqvi writing on the visit by US Sec of State to Pakistan

The US Secretary of State arrived in Islamabad this Monday evening. The
national press has been billing this visit as one that is primarily
concerned with Kashmir. America is being projected, with official
blessings, as being anxious to reducing high military tension in Kashmir
and for working towards a final solution of this long festering problem.
For the rest, he will try to remove the glitches in the full flowering
of Pakistan's US cooperation and the bilateral ties with the US being
made friction free. But it is strange that the visit in the Pakistani
media has been linked primarily with the supposed US anxiety to help
resolve the Kashmir problem, as if this was uppermost in American mind.

Your correspondent's sources outside the Pakistani officialdom, mostly
analysts with an ear of higher bureaucracy, say this visit's primary
significance is bilateral. The US is fighting a tough war and it has
many concerns regarding Pakistan, a new ally, that is desired to play a
key role in this war. Kashmir is sure to be discussed. But this will be
in the context of America's bilateral ties with Pakistan and not as a
big problem in its own right on which the US has large initiatives to
propose.

Given the anti-Pakistan psychosis in the Indian media and the BJP
government growling at Pakistan, it would be odd if the US were to make
far-reaching proposals on Kashmir. America's current interest, it is
held by many acute observers, is to lower the military tension in
Kashmir and to urge restraint on Indian decision-makers. Recent
statements of the Indian PM, Home Minister and Defence Minister all
tended to show that they might take more fateful decisions vis-=E0-vis
Kashmir and Pakistan. Pakistani media is sure that India is
contemplating military action in Azad Kashmir under the guise of hot
pursuit.

Powell is sure to try to cool the political temperature in New Delhi and
reduce Kashmir tensions. But that will be more in the nature of a
holding operation rather than as a big new initiative. Since the US has
to depend on Pakistan a great deal more than is realised in New Delhi,
the US, in its own interest, would ensure that its key ally's rear
remains safe. Hence it would urge restraint on India, though it will
also urge on Pakistan the need for reducing the intensity of what it
calls Jehad in Kashmir. It cannot be that the main purpose of this visit
to Islamabad is bilateral --- to remove misunderstanding and instill more
confidence in Pakistani rulers regarding the helpfulness of the US
Administration. It is best to keep American interests in sharp focus
where Pakistan is concerned. All its warts, weaknesses and trespasses
have to be forgotten for the duration of the war emergency. It has to be
enabled to overcome its reservations for playing a more active role in
the war than it has been willing so far. What are the US interests?

One would put America's political interests in serial order. It will
have to be led by the dire need for intelligence on Afghanistan.
Americans believe that Pakistan's ISI knows Afghanistan and all its
various militias inside out, much more than any other country's agency.
As for Taliban, they are its creation and ISI has ensured their success
so far. Without ISI working for them, the American hopes of capturing or
killing Osama and toppling Taliban may take years of war without any
certainty of eventual success.

But Pakistan is held back by many factors, not excluding its rulers=92
earlier perceptions of national interests that regarded a
Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as vital to Pakistan. Public opinion, fed
on Islamic rhetoric usually cynically, for all these 54 years, is now
mainly against America and a substantial portion of it --- that part
which is under the influence of religious parties and Jehadi
organisations --- is solidly for Taliban. They are in full cry. There
are daily demonstrations all over the country against America's war and
in support of Taliban. They are joined by many others who are mainly
anti-Americans. None should forget that Americans are the most unpopular
foreigners here. The upswelling of anti-American sentiment shows no sign
of abating.

Mr. Powell arrives in a city that had no people except security forces.
The country was observing a bandh on a call from a certain Defence of
Afghanistan Council, constituted recently by religious parties and
Jehadi bodies. All the boisterous protestors are opposed to the
Musharraf government also. The Americans have a problem on their hands:
President George W. Bush had already declared that one of his objectives
was to stabilise Musharraf Presidency. Hence there is much talk, and
more anticipation, of an aid package that Mr. Powell will unfold before
his Pakistani interlocutors. The assumption is: if the package is
attractive enough --- i.e. if it contains enough debt write offs --- it
might reduce some of the objections to Musharraf's switching sides from
Taliban to the Americans.

Third, one of the immediate US need is substantial support on the ground
for winning the war. They need foot soldiers. Since American public will
not abide by looking at arriving body bags the really dirty part of the
fighting on the ground requires outside support. The US is encouraging
the Northern Alliance warlords in Afghanistan to go, with allied aid,
and topple Taliban regime. This is however not as simple as it seems.
Experts think that victory over Taliban requires not only a disciplined
army but also the full help of ISI. But it will not be easy for
Musharraf. He has to be helped to do that.

Which is why the US officials are intermittently talking about putting
the Pakistan-American alliance on a normal (permanent) footing. Hence
all the fence mending, safeguarding the rear with India and the aid
package. How big or attractive the package is will soon be known. Is it
anything more than a temporary bailout as hitherto? Or it frees
Islamabad from the recurring nightmares of default? On that may depend
the future of Pak-American relationship. Initial indications are mixed:
some think that the US officials must have done an attractive job of it
while others think that most American experts have grown so used to
regarding Pakistan as a near rogue state that they can scarcely be too
sympathetic. Well, we will soon find out.

There are some serious glitches to be removed. Kashmir is one. While the
US may want more to reduce temperature and military tensions, the
Indians want progress, in the here and now, towards ending, or at least
sharply reducing, the cross-border terrorism. Pakistan might welcome a
reduction in military tension and may go some way toward reducing the
intensity of Jehad but can scarcely be ready to end it or promise to do
so if there is no prospect of a resolution of the Kashmir problem. It
will probably settle for serious-seeming negotiations for want of any
hard progress. But will India concede even that much. Some think its
present frame of mind is such that it might not resist the temptation to
take hard advantage of the turmoil in both Afghanistan and inside
Pakistan.

Everything then will finally depend on how the Americans succeed in
managing these two South Asian neighbours. The real initiative is not in
Indian, much less in Pakistani, hands. The polarisation between the two
has reduced the true room for manoeuvre for both New Delhi and
Islamabad; both cannot move without seeking an 'understanding' by the
Americans. Some statesmanship, that. But that makes the Americans=92 task
easier of yoking the two in the service of their grand designs for Asia,
whether they like it or not.

______

#2.

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001

In Search of a Chromosome Bomb

Vinod Raina

The military might of the United States, we all know, is because of=20
its great technological advancement. Its war, mostly cold, against=20
nations with 'other' ideologies, produced artifacts of military might=20
for mass destruction, in the shape of missiles - nuclear or=20
otherwise, aircraft carriers, massive submarines, military planes of=20
various shapes and sizes, and a myriad of communication technologies.=20
Since it never had to engage in a big war, which means against the=20
Soviets, but has preferred to get entangled in a variety of lesser=20
wars, like in Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo etc., its war machine, mercifully=20
under-utilized, has nevertheless required necessary modifications=20
from time to time. The death of innocent civilians, 'collateral=20
damage' if you like, is fortunately still an embarrassment, so=20
directional bombs and missiles of various names - cruise, laser,=20
implosive, bunker-piercing, heat seeking and so on, have been devised=20
in order to perfect and pin point death.

Now, we are supposed to believe from the 'Make No Mistake' President,=20
George Bush that the war is not against a nation or an ideology, but=20
against a ghost called terrorism. But since it is somewhat difficult=20
to slam ordnance against ghosts (be reminded that things are supposed=20
to go right through them), it must have a shape. So we are told there=20
is irrevocable evidence that the shape is that of, as a Republican=20
senator put it, a 'guy in a long beard with a diaper on his head'=20
(he of course also said that America has a right to detain any person=20
of such an appearance a Sikh petrol pump owner in Arizona of such an=20
appearance was promptly shot dead!). Now one does not mean to say=20
that the planes that hit the Pentagon and the WTC towers were=20
propelled by ghosts, obviously they were acts of demented people who=20
must be punished, but the moment you say you are going to fight a war=20
against 'terrorism', you render the perpetrators ghostly, since the=20
act to create terror springs from extreme anger, and how does one=20
fight a military war against extreme anger? The 'Make no Mistake'=20
President's answer seems to bomb Afghanistan from its present stone=20
age existence into Neanderthal times; but will that throw up the=20
supposed terrorists, 'smoke them out', as our cowboy President would=20
like us to believe? The chances look slim. Even if they are smoked=20
out and exterminated, one would never know that they were really the=20
people responsible for Sep 11 strikes since the 'irrevocable'=20
evidence has never been made public, and all evidence seems to=20
suggest that the 'irrevocable evidence' is rather pretty thin.

However, we now have a list of over twenty persons who we are told=20
are the cause of World's misery, and an impediment in the smooth=20
functioning of world's economy, trade and markets. The enemy now,=20
therefore, is individuals. And we have been promised that the war=20
might go on for a year or two and can engulf other countries too.=20
Which means more and more 'collateral' slaughter of the innocents is=20
on the cards. Why therefore use the outdated cold war military=20
technology of mass destruction if the realities of war have changed?=20
Now, Mr. 'Make no Mistake' President, your country has recently=20
cracked the human genome, which means you can uniquely print out any=20
human being from its single cell. You have delta forces that can=20
sneak out people from the bowels of the earth, so they should be able=20
to steal a beard hair, a drop of semen or any other cell sample. You=20
have body odour detectors, and of course even in that 'confused piece=20
of land somewhere close to Afghanistan, or is Afghanistan one of its=20
provinces?', called India (wish the Americans had better geography=20
lessons in their schools), DNA fingerprinting is possible. You have=20
nearly all the ingredients available to fabricate something that will=20
have the DNA fingerprint of the individual you decide to designate a=20
terrorist in its nose as a guidance system to locate the person=20
anywhere in the universe. Such a Chromosome Bomb, Mr. President, may=20
mercifully spare thousands from 'collateral' death. And it would=20
considerably boost your scientific and industrial research and=20
production. Think of this, you could conceivably prepare a designated=20
and dedicated Chromosome Bomb for every human being on the Earth,=20
that is over five billion bombs, ensuring an unprecedented boost to=20
your economy; just look at the kind of market you could have! India=20
is certain to place the first order for its elusive brigand Veerapan.=20
Imagine the kind of boost it would give to the American free=20
enterprise - Democrats and Republicans could bargain in the free=20
market to assemble Chromosome Bombs for each of their adversaries, as=20
would the politicians the world over. This would also ensure a=20
supreme victory over nature; it would no longer be necessary to be a=20
slave to the vagaries of natural death of each individual - if and=20
when necessary, each person could be uniquely exterminated.

A few cautions however. It is possible that to ensure perfection,=20
scientists might also feed collateral information in the Chromosome=20
Bomb, like the persons appearance - diaper on the head and long=20
beard etc. Now you know technology can go wrong. Take September 11=20
for example. One plane takes off from Boston and suddenly loses a=20
considerable amount of height and crashes into a tower. Wonder how=20
the famed American Air Traffic Controls systems did not track it and=20
send warnings. Incredibly, a bare fifteen minutes later, another=20
plane did the same and yet it was not detected, and worse, the third=20
that landed on the Pentagon also went untracked, perhaps over a=20
no-fly zone! So technology is fallible, even in the great US of A. So=20
a chromosome bomb with 'appearance' data as part of its guidance=20
system might slam into every Sardar, Sadhu or Moulvi in the world -=20
long beard with diaper on the head - and vindicate the Republican=20
senator (the real terrorists being masters of simplicity - they use=20
box cutters and small knives - might simply stop using the diapers on=20
their heads and shave their beards, or might use a Afghani herbal oil=20
to mask their chromosome scents). Worse, a malfunctioning=20
microprocessor in the guidance system might direct the Chromosome=20
Bombs with 'appearance' data to the diaper hugging infant bottoms,=20
and considerably add to the extermination of over half a million=20
Iraqi infants from medicine embargos, by killing infants all over the=20
world.

So you see Mr. President, the ultimate extermination technology, the=20
Chromosome Bomb, may also have its embarrassing and 'collateral'=20
problems. And every bomb - conventional, laser, body odour seeking or=20
chromosome that is used heightens the anger of thousands. Out of=20
these thousands who are angered by each bomb, some decide to strike=20
back with terror, unmindful of their own lives. When that happens,=20
for every single terrorist on the hit list that may be smoked out,=20
thousands are inspired to strike back with terror; so it is a no win=20
game, no matter what kind of technology you use. Simply put, people=20
who are prepared to sacrifice their lives are unstoppable; it is just=20
that they may not succeed every time. Anger leading to perpetuation=20
of terror does not spring only from the bombs that are used, but by=20
the systematic economic, social, cultural and political exclusion and=20
marginalisation of a vast majority of people, brought about by the=20
prevailing geo-political world order. Ideology, religion or cult is=20
not the springboard of terrorism; it is mostly a convenient and=20
momentary perch. With the terrific response of your firepower, you=20
may Mr. President strike terror in the hearts of the innocents and=20
temporarily stall the tactics of the terrorist, but you will also=20
ensure the swelling of their ranks and reprisals, when you and your=20
people get tired of the bombings. In this way you would have ensured=20
the victory of terrorism.=20

Make no mistake Mr. President; there are simple solutions to the=20
problem than fighting a no-win war against terrorism only if you=20
would care to look for them. To begin with, you may start with the=20
question "Why do so many people all over the world - not just Muslim,=20
Oriental, Commies and Socialists, but Free Market espousing too -=20
nurture such a great deal of anger for the American state; the state=20
Mr. President, not its people?" It might sound a tough and out of=20
course question in the US but if we started from there, we could=20
begin to understand and tackle terrorism.

______

#3.

[with Many thanks to ZAK for sending this]

... only one name need be changed!

While Hussein kneels on a Prayer Rug
with Billy Graham
we are dropping bombs
around the clock
and Hussein vows to fight
until "the last child."
We pat ourselves on our backs
that we are not precisely
aiming for humans
but buildings.
And Hussein did not mean his
own children, for Heaven's sake!

Belinda Subraman

______

#4.

Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:22:16 +0530

OFFERS OF PEACE

Within the last week, two governments have made offers of peace. The=20
first offer came from General Musharraf who called the Indian Prime=20
Minister to express his concern about the ghastly event in Srinagar,=20
and to urge the resumption of dialogue at the highest level. The=20
second offer came from the Taliban agreeing to hand Osama bin Laden=20
over to a suitable third country provided (a) the bombing stopped,=20
and (b) evidence of bin Laden's complicity in 9-11 produced.

Both offers raised a glimmer of hope and sanity amidst catastrophic=20
human disaster. If accepted, the Taliban offer could have provided a=20
peaceful way out of the war without compromising the basic value of=20
the international rejection of terrorism. The acceptance of the=20
Pakistan offer could have allowed India and Pakistan to form a=20
coalition, supported by over a billion people, to thwart some of the=20
NATO designs that are currently unfolding in the subcontinent.

In fact, it would have been better if these offers generated from the=20
US and India. After a week of savage bombing, the US could have=20
declared a unilateral ceasefire and requested negotiations. Following=20
the swift, official condemnation of the Srinagar event from Pakistan,=20
Bajpayee could have called Musharraf to express his appreciation and=20
suggest talks. In a global conflict in which no one occupies high=20
moral ground and everyone is the loser, such small, timely and=20
totally safe gestures of statesmanship can make or break histories.

As things stand, both offers have been summarily rejected. The US=20
rejection is based on the axiom that its demands are non-negotiable.=20
The Indian rejection harped on the obstinate issue of cross border=20
terrorism. It does not require great political acumen to understand=20
that if Pakistan agrees to solve this issue to the satisfaction of=20
India, then there is very little to negotiate. Assuming that the=20
government of India understands this as well, the rejection in effect=20
amounts to non-negotiability. The small prospect of peace that=20
appeared on the otherwise continuous scenario of war and hatred was=20
thus smothered. Hands in glove, the mainstream media hardly pressed=20
the issue beyond minimal reporting, giving the impression that the=20
gestures carry no real meaning for now; the war must go on to its=20
logical conclusion.

Justifying the logic, it has been suggested that the offers came from=20
beleagured states after they have been placed in tight spots. >From=20
this undeniable fact it is then inferred that acceptance of the=20
offers will only release the grip to enable these states to spring=20
back to their earlier machinations. The Taliban offer, for example,=20
is seen as an effort in 'stalling', as a commentator observed on the=20
BBC. The grip, therefore, should not only be held in place, it should=20
be ceaselessly tightened until the demands are unilaterally met.=20
George Bush wants to continue bombing until they 'cough up' Osama bin=20
Laden and the Taliban is removed from power. The hawk-infested=20
security system in India expects Pakistan to obey its dicta as=20
'international pressure' mounts and Pakistan disintegrates.

The nations of Afganisthan and Pakistan could well disintegrate to=20
leave its people at the mercy of warlords, jehadis, mercenaries,=20
contras, and puppets. Yet, it is clear by now that the Taliban will=20
not voluntarily hand bin Laden over to the US. It is also clear that=20
it is beyond the current capabilities of General Musharraf to call a=20
unilateral halt to the operation that India calls 'cross border=20
terrorism'. So the brutal conflicts will continue both in Afganisthan=20
and Kashmir, and will possibly engulf other parts of the=20
subcontinent, the middle east, parts of Africa - and spread beyond.=20
One could almost visualize terrorists of all shades rubbing their=20
hands in glee.

Yet, to return to the belligerent argument sketched above, the ground=20
realities in both Afganisthan and Pakistan have radically altered=20
since 9-11. First, Afganisthan. With a ruined economy and complete=20
isolation leading to the closure of all supply routes, the Taliban=20
system just cannot survive in its old form. A negotiating table at=20
this juncture might well open up the possibilities for extracting as=20
much democratic and humanitarian mileage under international=20
supervision as is possible in this devasted nation. Once they are=20
allowed to retain a semblance of pride, they might - just might -=20
agree to a more decent form of governance involving broad sections of=20
the Afghan people, including the refugees in various countries.

By any rational standard, the Taliban offer, which are designed to=20
save their pride, is perfectly legitimate. If a sovereign state is=20
asked to hand over one of its subjects, it has the right to examine=20
preliminary evidence to decide whether the person ought to face=20
judicial procedure at all. Satisfied, it has the right to ensure his=20
justice and security. Without this surety, bin Laden can only be=20
brought dead, if at all. The Taliban could have claimed, as they did=20
initially, that their own judicial system is adequate for the=20
purpose. But, on the possible objection that they could be viewed as=20
a party, they have agreed to hand over bin Laden to a judicial system=20
that is not a party to the conflict. In effect, they are asking for a=20
reciprocity. Bombing and murder can always be resumed. But, it is=20
quite possible that, once a neutral party is mutually agreed upon,=20
the Taliban may not even want to see the full evidence.

The outright rejection of these possibilities only helps in raising a=20
series of suspicions about the motivations of the US. These=20
suspicions are gaining in international currency since they are=20
viewed as consonant with US policies in the past. First, it is=20
suspected that the US does not want to bring bin Laden to justice=20
since any non-violent method of doing so will allow him to open his=20
mouth. Bin laden is not only the author of a discourse of hate, he is=20
also a prime collaborator and, thus, witness to the gory history of=20
the last decades; bin Laden is better brought dead.

Second, there are growing doubts if the US has tangible evidence=20
against bin Laden at all. The decision to 'reveal' the evidence only=20
to its NATO allies and Pakistan carries no credibility since these=20
parties are not in a position or mood, as the case may be, to=20
disagree even when presented with blank sheets. The argument that=20
revelations at this stage might hamper 'on-going' investigation is=20
even more factitious, since it is easily seen as an excuse to prolong=20
the conflict indefinitely. The international community, especially=20
those who want to believe that bin Laden is innocent, can only infer=20
that the US has more to hide than it is prepared to disclose. This=20
gives bin Laden all the mileage he needs.

Third, as many commentators are beginning to articulate, it is=20
difficult to dispel the misgiving that, in the name of fighting=20
global terrorism, the US is basically interested in using the=20
opportunity to establish permanent military presence in the area for=20
noted geo-political hegemony: the Cremian oil, the Chinese, the Silk=20
Route, the mountain passes, the southasian market, and much else.=20
Otherwise, it is hard to believe that thousands are going to be=20
killed and maimed, entire nations devastated, regional conflicts=20
allowed to take ugly turns, the rest of the world held in fear - all=20
because the dead body of a single, essentially unworthy person is=20
given such a high value.

Clearly, the three items of suspicion cluster. Recall that the=20
Taliban made its offer within the week of 9-11. Given the paroxysm=20
and the madness of that moment, it is understandable - though not=20
morally and politically justified - that the offer was entirely=20
ignored. Now, people are beginning to ask questions, forcing the=20
media to at least cover the issue. Even with this minimal reflection,=20
it is not difficult to discern which way the needle of suspicion is=20
turning.

Somewhat different considerations, especially with regard to the=20
scale of consequences, apply to India's rejection of the Pakistani=20
offer. Here as well, the ground realities have radically altered=20
since 9-11. With a fragile economy and seething, conflicting=20
discontent engulfing the country, Musharraf has no choice but to turn=20
against the mullahs and to act as a frontline state in the current=20
conflict. The dangerous contradictions of this stand are obvious.=20
Clearly, the only way out for Pakistan at this juncture is not to be=20
involved too deeply in the NATO dragnet. This requires that Musharraf=20
is able to muster and represent the vast but disorganized common=20
opinion against the US without fanning the fundamentalist. The=20
fundamentalist cannot be removed from the scene until the Kashmir=20
issue begins to get addressed.

The only people who opposed the Agra initiative were the=20
fundamentalists in India and Pakistan and the militants in Kashmir;=20
the people who had the greatest hope out of it were ordinary=20
Kashmiris, Pakistanis, and Indians. These are also the masses who are=20
opposed to NATO presence in the subcontinent. Thus, one sure way to=20
resist both the murder of Afganisthan and the call of the=20
fundamentalist is to bring these masses together. Under the=20
circumstances, the masses cannot raise a common voice unless their=20
leaders do. The reactivation of the Agra process could have gone a=20
long way in achieving these goals.

Musharraf's offer of dialogue must be seen in this light. With the=20
atmosphere of negotiations returning to the subcontinent, there was=20
the opportunity to spread it across other borders. If India and=20
Pakistan were to start talking with over 50,000 deaths in the=20
background, the US would have found it at least embarrassing to show=20
its bloody face. The only hitch of course is the undemocratic=20
character of the rule in Pakistan. Yet, the irony is that the=20
dictator General Musharraf currently stands between a total surrender=20
to NATO and other generals quitely waiting under the wings of=20
Jamait-ul-Islami and the like.

By rejecting the offer on narrow, hawkish grounds, therefore, the=20
Indian leadership has spurned a golden opportunity to change the=20
otherwise inevitable course to disaster.

Nirmalangshu Mukherji

Delhi University, Delhi

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. To=20
subscribe send a blank
message to: <act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.

--=20