Nuclear South Asia: An Explanation to America

http://www.smh.com.au/news/0105/28/features/features7.html

May 28,2001

A rogue with his finger on the nuclear trigger

The influence of Islamic extremists in Musharaf`s Pakistan creates little cause for optimism about peace talks with India, writes Amin Saikal.

The Indian Government has been bold in inviting Pakistan`s military ruler, General Pervez Musharaf, for peace talks. While the move is welcome, it should not raise expectations too high: Musharaf has so far proved no more inspiring than any other military dictator.

While Pakistan continues to suffer from serious domestic and foreign policy problems, he has focused much of his energy on how to engineer the country`s return to a civilian rule in such a way that he can take over the presidency and the military can preserve its central role in the country`s politics.

Musharaf toppled the elected government of Nawaz Sharif in October 1999, promising to restore economic and social stability, and to return Pakistan to a workable democracy. He also hoped to end its international isolation over its nuclear weapons dispute with India and its support of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Initially he refused to put a time limit on military rule, but subsequently accepted a Supreme Court decision to terminate his rule by the end of next year. But halfway through his ``term``, the general has little to boast about.

The economy continues in the doldrums, and all the major indicators show that the threat of national bankruptcy still looms large. If not for IMF bailouts, Pakistan would have already been declared bankrupt. Social divisions and communal and sectarian conflicts, which have cost hundreds of lives over the past 18 months, have persisted with no relief in sight. The port city of Karachi, Pakistan`s industrial base, has born the brunt of the disorder, making it a no-go zone for most foreign investors.

On average, a bomb has exploded every two weeks in some part of the country. Ethnic relations between Pakistan`s main national groups - the Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans, Baluchis and Mahajirs - have remained as tense as ever. While Musharaf is a Mahajir, Punjabi generals have remained dominant in the military and the bureaucracy.

There has been no noticeable reduction in the corruption which has permeated every layer of the society. The problem is not confined to lower levels but is also rampant at the very top, involving the leaders of the military and military intelligence (ISI).

In addition, drug trafficking and addiction have reached crisis proportions.

Musharaf has likened himself to the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk: a reformist nationalist. But he has done little to curb the growing influence of Islamic extremists, with links to the Taliban. Islamic radicals have penetrated the armed forces, particularly at lower and middle levels.

As public discontent has grown over Musharaf`s economic, social and law and order failures, he has become increasingly dependent on the support of the military and Islamic groups. He has found it expedient to leave the growing Talibanisation of Pakistan virtually unchecked.

He has been ruthless against his political opponents, clearly trying to destroy the parties of exiled former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.

However, he has let the Islamic extremists campaign freely. He and many of his close associates have publicly confirmed Pakistan`s support in the name of ``national security`` for the Taliban and Kashmiri militants fighting for independence from India. He allowed the Islamic extremists to hold their biggest public gathering ever in April in Peshawar on the border with Afghanistan where Taliban leader Mullah Omer and his protected ``guest``, Saudi dissident and America`s most wanted man, Osama Bin Laden, urged the world`s Muslims to unite behind the Taliban for a wider Jihad (holy war).

Meanwhile, he has done little to reduce tension with India. He has allowed to go on unabated the ISI tutelage of Kashmiri Islamic militants and the Taliban in reinforcing one another. He has responded positively to the invitation for peace talks, but only on the proviso that India meet the independence demand of the Pakistan-backed Kashmiri combatants.

As many Pakistanis begin to question Musharaf`s policies, the US, Britain and the European Union have also stepped up their public criticism. The US Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, recently hinted that Pakistan is a potentially ``rogue state``.

In response, Musharaf has declared that while he may hold a partyless general election before the end of next year, he would want to assume the post of president. Musharaf is poised to prove once again that military dictators generally can`t deliver democracy.

Pakistan constitutes a serious danger to regional stability: it is not only a nuclear power under military rule, but also a failed state.

The world has reason to be deeply concerned.

Amin Saikal is professor of political science and director of the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies at the Australian National University.

``The Clinton administration should reverse course and recognise that India is a legitimate nuclear state, like Britain and Russia, not a dangerous nuclear rogue like North Korea. It (the United States) should allow India to keep its nuclear weapons and sign the non-proliferation treaty, with all the attendant rights and obligations,``says University of Chicago political scientist John Mearshimer.

Mearshimer backs the idea of cultivating New Delhi to counter Beijing, saying ``it would be difficult to fashion an effective coalition of Asian countries (against China) without India as a central pillar.``

``Nuclear weapons are an excellent deterrent against aggression, and India lives in a dangerous neighbourhood... As a start toward closer political ties, the administration could support India`s membership in the UN Security Council... A more realistic policy toward India would benefit both Asia and American interests,`` he wrote in a New York Times commentary under the headline ``India Needs the Bomb.``

Dear Mr. Siddiqui,

You wonder what kind of Pakistanis I (and MNI, Najam, etc.) meet in US. That leads me to wonder what kind of social circle you have. Probably you talk to your Pakistani friends only when a ``feranagi`` is in the ear shot distance. If you ever go to a party or a social event where only Pakistanis are present the discussion is very open. MNI is right on the target when he talks about the disgust and contempt of US shown by Pakistanis when they get together. Why go further, just read the opinions in Chowk... Almost every next letter takes a swipe at US, its culture and its values.

Its a shame that despite being so well informed you have chosen to take the ostrich approach. By pretending that US IS or WAS Pakistan`s friend you are not doing any service to Pakistan. Also, I am saddened by your accusation of ``ulterior motives`` for no reason. Chowk is a place where one may openly exchange thoughts. I am sure the US State department isn`t going throug the contents of Chowk to decide the foreign policy towards Pakistan.

So lets stop pretending and be true to ourselves. The fact is Pakistanis have a better chance of finding a friend in India than USA.

Yours truly...

My experience is that at every single gathering of Pakistanis the conversation soon drifts to how bad the US and Israel are, how the US is responsible for every single ailment that afflicts Islam and Muslim countries. And I`m talking about the relatively better-educated segment of our society, both here and back at home.

While what I say might not be beneficial to the PR campaign by the government of Pakistan, it is the plain and simple truth. A majority of Pakistanis do not wish this country well, and have nothing but contempt for the principles of secularism, freedom and liberty as understood in the West.

Rgds
MNI

The misperception that Pakistan needs the USA has damaged us in the past. Pakistan`s interests can be met by self sufficiency and re-defining of its foreign policy.

Some people like are so used to kissing up to the Americans that they have made a habbit out of it and encourage others to do the same, such individuals can`t see beyond what the US does. Pakistani`s have every reason to feel a sense of resentment against the USA, we have paid millions of dollars for F-16`s which are not being given to us, is this not a violation of International law. Would any other state be allowed to get away with such a gross violation of International Ethics?

Indeed some Pakistani`s for their selfish interests would recommend that we tow the US line but than its these people who have played a role in damaging our country and now their voices should simply be ignored.

If some of our selfish dictators have towed the US lines in the past, it was not out of friendship, but their own self-interest. The so-called Pakistan-US friendship is nothing but a `you scratch my back I scratch yours` relationship.

The people of Pakistan by and large have nothing but hatred for the US, the West and everything it stands for. They also think of Pakistan as some big time geopolitical player that should attract everybody`s -especially America`s- attention. When we don`t get any (get used to it folks, we are nobody) we either go into the `shikwah` mode, or we start badmouthing America.

For those who say America is the most racist country in the world...how can you say that, when you, a brownie are sipping your coffee in a suburban home, driving cars that you wouldn`t even dream of owning in Pakistan? You are probably smart and competent and got rewarded generously for your talents. And you are fully benefitting from the first amendment that gives you the liberty of condemning this country. Please read the constitution of Pakistan and find out whether you are granted such freedom as a citizen of Pakistan. You are not.

This is the plain hard truth in my opinion, no matter how long we keep running away from it.

Regards
Mohammad Noorul Islam

Ref: Najam

Ras H. Siddiqui wrote:

- ``How we treat our friends is a reflection of our character.``

- ``This how we treat our friends? ``

Najam,
Let me first offer my apology if I have hurt your feelings. But please try to understand the point I am making. The fact is, how much ever it may be unpalatable to a proud Pakistani, America IS NOT and WAS NOT a friend of Pakistan.

Your outburst does not surprise me at all as this is a very routine response I get from all Pakistanis in US.

It seems, it is very fashionable in Pakistani circle to keep lamenting on how US let down its ``old friend Pakistan``. First they will cry their eyes out complaining about US` ``bewafai`` and in the same breath they denounce US as the great satan, characterless and morally corrupt country. Your own harsh denouncement of US is just another example.

It seems that Pakistanis in general covet and crave attention from US and when it does not get any, given the sad realities of the world, they start singing the ``sanam o bewafa`` songs...

As far as your accusation of my being ill mannered goes, all I have to say is that I was highly restrained in stating the truth. I had to be little up-front and matter-of-factly, which you mistook for lack of manners, to open up the eyes of my deluded Pakistani friends.

Old wisdom: Friendship and Enmity can only be in equals. Pakistan can be friend of India and Pakistan can be enemy of India but Pakistan can only be a ``Chamcha`` of US.

Ref: RV

I DONT KNOW YOUR NATIONALITY BUT KINDLY TREAT MY DEAR PAKISTAN WITH REPSECT , YOU MAY BOOT LICK THE AMERICANS BUT IN MY VIEW THE MOST HYPOCRICTICAL AND RACIST STATE AFTER ISRAEL IS THE US. ONLY A BRIEF LOOK INTO THE AMERICAN POLICIES TOWARDS MUSLIM COUNTRIES PROVES THIS. IAM GLAD WE ARE GETING AWAY FROM THIS DISGUSTING STATE AND LEARNING TO LOOK ELSEWHERE FOR FRIENDSHIPS.

LASTLY IF YOU DONT HAVE BASIC MANNERS THAN STOP TRYING TO TAKE PART IN EDUCATED DISUSSIONS

Dear Mr.Siddiqui,

I found your explanation regarding Pakistan`s nuclear tests interesting and very readable.

Though I share your concerns regarding the dangers of a nuclear war, I find your observations regarding US`s bad treatment of its ``old friend Pakistan`` loaded with self-delusion.

I am surprised even after living in US you have not realized that US and Pakistan were never friends. US had some goals in the region and to fulfill them it needed a partner (more of an accomplice...) It found a poor and hungry country ready to dance naked at its tune for few dollars. The dance went on well until there was a need and as soon the need got over the US alms stopped.

If Pakistan thought of the dole as ``friendship`` then it was its own fault. There was no friendship and there will be no friendship between Pakistan and US (and for that matter between India and US) untill it raises itself to the economic standards of US.

China was as much a loathful beggar and dirty commie scoundrel for US until its economy boomed and it became a respectable country. Now Clinton is trying to kiss its ... from all positions described in Kamasutra!!!

So please don`t get delusioned that Pakistan is a friend of US. At most it can call itself a ``Chamcha``.

Please, don`t misunderstand that I am trying to belittle Pakistan. India has no better standing in US eyes.

Having observed the US society`s total lack of interest in these two countries makes me feel that nobody will shed a single drop of tear if India and Pakistan destroy each other. In this culture only money is respected.

Many of the americans I talk to, kind of wonder ``where do these beggars get off calling themselves our friend``.

We should all learn to know our ``aukaat`` and live with it.

Yours truly...

Good thoughts all in your article. I echo the hope for sanity and tolerance. I have one small gripe with a sentence you used about Kashmiri women,
`their women have been raped by Indian troops`. i would prefer this was phrased like, `Kashmiri women have been raped by Indian troops`. The reality perhaps is more near to what you wrote but I think rape is a heinous enough crime to stand without dragging abuse of the Kashmiri men into it.

I apologize if this seems pedantic.:-)

In reference to Bannerjee`s comments:

No, that statement doesn`t reduce the article to rubbish. That statement has little basis in reality and might have been motivated by the desire for preferential treatment by America. However, what really does bothers Bannerjee is that he can`t refute the essence of what is being said. Overall, the article is a fair representation of what has transpired between India and Pakistan and Bannerjee knows it. That`s why he has to nit pick.

What is sad is that there had been some degree of progress in the last few years towards a better understanding across borders, mainly through the intellectual community and to a lesser extent, the media. This was despite the fact that India continued to kill innocent people in Kashmir. Jingoist, myopic ``Bannerjees`` on both sides of the border, however represent the majority and their views are reflected in the events that have occured.

India has proven to the world that it is the aggressor and the more irrational party in the tension between these two countries. This whole nuclear thing has pushed us back many years in being able to work together. I`m not sure when either side will have the maturity to look rationally at the potential.