In any country there are two sides to an administration’s strategy, approach and governance. One side is the public face which comes on the stage and speaks the language masses wants to hear. The other face is much darker and clandestine. It is the interaction of administration with the intelligence arms of the country to put wiretaps on citizens, create files on corrupt practices of politicians that can be used in times of political manipulation and sometimes take certain actions that can change the political winds in a country. Administrations would like to believe that they fully control their intelligence apparatus but the reality is that many times the field officers have their own views of the situation and can act independently without proper approvals from their supervisors. This creates embarrassing situations for public representatives who are responsible for the control of these units. It can go so far that it destroys relations between two nations when the information leak out about the involvement of intelligence agencies in certain events. Like the Iran contra affair during Regan administration or wire taping without proper authorization by Bush administration. This phenomenon also gives rise to conspiracy theories further complicating the efforts for the truth to come out into broad day light. Let us analyze the current situation in Pakistan in the light of this theory.
After the end of cold war with Russia (formerly USSR) in 1989 there has been a debate in US policy making circles about the next threat to US national security. There seems to be wide spread agreement between neocon and liberals that extremist elements in Muslim societies from Sudan to Indonesia might create problems for the West. But they seems to be to be disagreeing on the approach to handle these extremist elements. On one side are conservatives lead by Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle who believe in preemptive strike at rouge Muslim states like Iraq and Afghanistan to curtail extremism at the grass root level. During 1990s President Clinton was able to contain the ambitions of this neocon group by focusing more on improving the economy and quality of life for the people. President Clinton’s approach is now questioned by these conservatives who blame 911 attacks on his indifference to handle Al-Qaeda after the first attack on World Trade center in 1993.
Liberals, on the other hand, lead by former President Carter and his National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinksi believes that negotiations at multilateral platforms are the only means to achieve greater cooperation between West and Muslim countries. They believe that fear of military action is a better instrument than the action itself. In their view it is important to solve long standing grievances of the Muslim community particularly solving the Palestine and Kashmir issues. They point to the success achieved in cold war through the policy of containment while dealing with Soviet Union.It is unfortunate that traditionally liberal Democratic Party’s presidential hopefuls are marching to the war bands and commenting they will pursue preemptive strikes inside Pakistan and Iran at their discretion. It is a set back to pro-peace leaders like Carter and Brzezinski.
After the events of 911, neocons were able to take control of US policy makers, media and mass appeal to channel all resources available to pursue the policy of preemptive military action without direct provocations by the targeted nations. Britain, a close ally of US, has experience in dealing with Muslim populations through their colonies in sub-continent, Africa and Middle East. British understand that the best approach to subjugate large number of people by a small force is to ensure divisions on ethnic, sectarian or even social lines. But divisions can not occur unless there is widespread hatred among different sections of the community. Prolonged violence prepares people’s psyche to accept divisions to attain the normalcy in their communities.
Clandestine operations play a pivotal role in promotion of division in an occupied territory. Nature of clandestine operations is such that governments have to give unusual financial and operational liberty to the field force. These largely independent operators create an action plan taking hint from the broader policy approach adopted by their governments. These plans sometimes include working with both fighting factions to ensure widespread chaos and damage of the social fabric. We are probably witnessing the same environment in Iraq where all kind of forces are at play. It will be foolish to think that energy hungry China and dignity seeking Russia will stay out of Iraq to allow US to take control of second largest oil reserves in the world without at least maintaining some kind of intelligence presence.
The evidence that West is pursuing the approach of divide and contain is demonstrated in policy research prepared by think tanks and academics. US Senator and presidential hopeful Joe Bidden has presented plans to break Iraq into three units with or without a confederate structure. In case of Pakistan, an analyst writing for a defense journal, in a 2006 article, sketched the future by predicting the break up of the country in probably three or four pieces. Similarly, recent bill to classify Turkish action against separatist Armenian’s, almost century ago, as a holocaust could be construed as a signal to separatist Kurds to legitimize their separatist claims as a nation. Media classification on Iraqi national insurgency as Shiite and Sunni is an effort to create ethnic division in Iraqi society which was non existent even during the cruelty of Saddam Hussain.
In the light of this theory the recent comments by Benazir Bhutto that she is targeted because of her ethnicity indicates that she is becoming an instrument of division instead of unity. She has also fueled ethnic divisions by naming the Chief Minister of Punjab being responsible for the bombing attacks in her Karachi. She has appealed to the international community to investigate the events rather than seeking domestic support. The UN resolution to condemn the Karachi bombing incidents as international events rather than domestic issue should ring an alarm bell for Pakistani foreign policy makers. This could mean that UN might use this precedence to authorize, if the situation arises, a pre-emptive strike inside Pakistan because of presence of international terrorism and inability of the local government to deal with it.
If we can take a lesson from history, it is evident that wars can not solve issues between civilizations. Negotiation and promotion of shared values is the only sure way of achieving global peace. Majority of Muslim countries are ruled by autocratic or proxy rulers supported by the West. These rulers create social disorders that promote extremism and become breeding ground for radicals. To provide voice for Muslims UN should provide fair representation of Muslim interest at its security council so that they can plead their case in international conflicts. This could be achieved by expanding the permanent membership of the council to include a Muslim state. Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) should also be made a member of the UN administration with powers equal to the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Sometime complex issues are solved through simple measures. West’s offhand approach to allow Muslim societies to develop their home grown democracies without meddling in their affairs could curtail the rise of extremism. In the short term there might be disturbances and disputes but in the long run it will enable Muslim societies to modernize and liberate themselves from conservative forces. Use of weapons creates collateral damage which enable extremist to find recruits. Let’s stop fighting and start talking to achieve world peace.
The Benazir deal
October 26, 2007 at 6:45 pm · Filed under Political Commentary, pakistan
In any country there are two sides to an administration’s strategy, approach and governance. One side is the public face which comes on the stage and speaks the language masses wants to hear. The other face is much darker and clandestine. It is the interaction of administration with the intelligence arms of the country to put wiretaps on citizens, create files on corrupt practices of politicians that can be used in times of political manipulation and sometimes take certain actions that can change the political winds in a country. Administrations would like to believe that they fully control their intelligence apparatus but the reality is that many times the field officers have their own views of the situation and can act independently without proper approvals from their supervisors. This creates embarrassing situations for public representatives who are responsible for the control of these units. It can go so far that it destroys relations between two nations when the information leak out about the involvement of intelligence agencies in certain events. Like the Iran contra affair during Regan administration or wire taping without proper authorization by Bush administration. This phenomenon also gives rise to conspiracy theories further complicating the efforts for the truth to come out into broad day light. Let us analyze the current situation in Pakistan in the light of this theory.
After the end of cold war with Russia (formerly USSR) in 1989 there has been a debate in US policy making circles about the next threat to US national security. There seems to be wide spread agreement between neocon and liberals that extremist elements in Muslim societies from Sudan to Indonesia might create problems for the West. But they seems to be to be disagreeing on the approach to handle these extremist elements. On one side are conservatives lead by Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle who believe in preemptive strike at rouge Muslim states like Iraq and Afghanistan to curtail extremism at the grass root level. During 1990s President Clinton was able to contain the ambitions of this neocon group by focusing more on improving the economy and quality of life for the people. President Clinton’s approach is now questioned by these conservatives who blame 911 attacks on his indifference to handle Al-Qaeda after the first attack on World Trade center in 1993.
Liberals, on the other hand, lead by former President Carter and his National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinksi believes that negotiations at multilateral platforms are the only means to achieve greater cooperation between West and Muslim countries. They believe that fear of military action is a better instrument than the action itself. In their view it is important to solve long standing grievances of the Muslim community particularly solving the Palestine and Kashmir issues. They point to the success achieved in cold war through the policy of containment while dealing with Soviet Union. It is unfortunate that traditionally liberal Democratic Party’s presidential hopefuls are marching to the war bands and commenting they will pursue preemptive strikes inside Pakistan and Iran at their discretion. It is a set back to pro-peace leaders like Carter and Brzezinski.
After the events of 911, neocons were able to take control of US policy makers, media and mass appeal to channel all resources available to pursue the policy of preemptive military action without direct provocations by the targeted nations. Britain, a close ally of US, has experience in dealing with Muslim populations through their colonies in sub-continent, Africa and Middle East. British understand that the best approach to subjugate large number of people by a small force is to ensure divisions on ethnic, sectarian or even social lines. But divisions can not occur unless there is widespread hatred among different sections of the community. Prolonged violence prepares people’s psyche to accept divisions to attain the normalcy in their communities.
Clandestine operations play a pivotal role in promotion of division in an occupied territory. Nature of clandestine operations is such that governments have to give unusual financial and operational liberty to the field force. These largely independent operators create an action plan taking hint from the broader policy approach adopted by their governments. These plans sometimes include working with both fighting factions to ensure widespread chaos and damage of the social fabric. We are probably witnessing the same environment in Iraq where all kind of forces are at play. It will be foolish to think that energy hungry China and dignity seeking Russia will stay out of Iraq to allow US to take control of second largest oil reserves in the world without at least maintaining some kind of intelligence presence.
The evidence that West is pursuing the approach of divide and contain is demonstrated in policy research prepared by think tanks and academics. US Senator and presidential hopeful Joe Bidden has presented plans to break Iraq into three units with or without a confederate structure. In case of Pakistan, an analyst writing for a defense journal, in a 2006 article, sketched the future by predicting the break up of the country in probably three or four pieces. Similarly, recent bill to classify Turkish action against separatist Armenian’s, almost century ago, as a holocaust could be construed as a signal to separatist Kurds to legitimize their separatist claims as a nation. Media classification on Iraqi national insurgency as Shiite and Sunni is an effort to create ethnic division in Iraqi society which was non existent even during the cruelty of Saddam Hussain.
In the light of this theory the recent comments by Benazir Bhutto that she is targeted because of her ethnicity indicates that she is becoming an instrument of division instead of unity. She has also fueled ethnic divisions by naming the Chief Minister of Punjab being responsible for the bombing attacks in her Karachi. She has appealed to the international community to investigate the events rather than seeking domestic support. The UN resolution to condemn the Karachi bombing incidents as international events rather than domestic issue should ring an alarm bell for Pakistani foreign policy makers. This could mean that UN might use this precedence to authorize, if the situation arises, a pre-emptive strike inside Pakistan because of presence of international terrorism and inability of the local government to deal with it.
If we can take a lesson from history, it is evident that wars can not solve issues between civilizations. Negotiation and promotion of shared values is the only sure way of achieving global peace. Majority of Muslim countries are ruled by autocratic or proxy rulers supported by the West. These rulers create social disorders that promote extremism and become breeding ground for radicals. To provide voice for Muslims UN should provide fair representation of Muslim interest at its security council so that they can plead their case in international conflicts. This could be achieved by expanding the permanent membership of the council to include a Muslim state. Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) should also be made a member of the UN administration with powers equal to the Secretary General of the United Nations.
Sometime complex issues are solved through simple measures. West’s offhand approach to allow Muslim societies to develop their home grown democracies without meddling in their affairs could curtail the rise of extremism. In the short term there might be disturbances and disputes but in the long run it will enable Muslim societies to modernize and liberate themselves from conservative forces. Use of weapons creates collateral damage which enable extremist to find recruits. Let’s stop fighting and start talking to achieve world peace.
Permalink