The Economist have recently dedicated cover page stories to Pakistan with a bold title "The Most Dangerous Nation in the World – It's Pakistan." Portraying a melodramatic picture of a hand grenade in the colours of Pakistan's national flag, the world's possibly most reliable journal has smeared Pakistan as "the world's most dangerous place."
The Economist newspaper, a sober and formidable activist for independent reporting, has tersely stated that "for some time Pakistan has been the main contender for the title of the most dangerous country on earth. Since the murder of Benazir Bhutto on December 27th its claim has been strengthened." It is a clear example of hyperbole and thoughtlessness of the periodical. I would rate this nonsense if not more, but no less sensational to their equally great idiocy and stupidity when they predicted with identical circus the great call of 'The Economist predicts low oil prices for foreseeable future.' They forecasted just before the oil took off like a rocket in 1999 that 'low prices will gradually put most such areas out of business-especially if cash-strapped Gulf states conclude that the best way to increase revenues is to boost production, which could drive prices from today's $10 to as little as $5.' When I see oil hovering around 100$, at an average of 50$ during the last 5 years, my 'reservations' on quality of these front-page fairy-tales get further reinforced.
The Economist's depiction of Pakistan as a dark and frightening country, possibly the most dangerous on earth, had set jitters across Washington. One popular misconception is that the eventual disintegration of Pakistan will be followed by the seizure of its nuclear arsenal by Islamic terrorists. This belief is fundamentally flawed because if Pakistan were to have ever collapsed as a nation state, it would have been during the 80's when it took on the Soviet Empire and brought them to a halt. Despite overwhelming American aid and support, the internal ramification rendered to Pakistani society by the Afghani war was cataclysmic; nevertheless, Pakistan survived and thrived. If it could successfully withstand a confrontation with the world's largest emporium, then that is a testament to its tenacity as a nation.
Senator Joe Lieberman undertook a journey to Pakistan and met with nearly everyone who matters in the hierarchy of the nuclear command. His comments after his visit will help understand the shallowness of The Economist's report. US Senator Joseph Lieberman (Independent-Connecticut) on Wednesday appreciated the strong command and control system for the security of Pakistan's nuclear assets, saying he was impressed by the system adopted by the country to secure its nuclear weapons. Addressing a press conference here at a local hotel, Joseph Lieberman said Director General Strategic Planning Division, Dr. Kidwai, briefed him about the security system for the nuclear assets. He appreciated the professionalism of the staff entrusted to secure the strategic assets and said that he shared the concern of US with Dr. Kidwai about the safety of these assets.
Thoroughly discounting Al-Qaida's/Mehsud involvement which has now been confirmed by nearly all the top intelligence agencies, including CIA, 'The Economist' supports the story of Benazir's murder on mere hearsay "if, as many in Pakistan believe the security services were behind themselves complicit...the insurgency in Baluchistan; and the spread of the 'Pakistani Taliban' out of the border tribal areas into the heartlands." Any inference to indict security services as part of the conspiracy is legitimising prevalent conspiracy theories. This is the first time Al-Qaida does not own the murder of a leader. The backlash in Pakistan has taken them by surprise; aiding conspiracy theories is effectively aiding atrocious criminals. One perhaps could argue that a little semblance of journalistic restraint should have been in order.
On expansion of 'Pakistani Taliban,' it would be unfair to overlook the efforts Pakistan is genuinely making to contain the genie in the box. 'Political Islam' is definitely on the move and it has gathered momentum with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, however, efforts to contain the intensity of this invasion from the north cannot be expediently overlooked. Thousands of Pakistanis have died; there are actual heavy artillery and tanks involved in battles with the extremists. No one else but 'The Economist' should have known from their archives the 'Waziristan' even under 'The Raj' was a free land, there were 150 treaties that gave this area complete autonomy and literally no control of the federal government.
Raj-induced freedom in today's 'dread swarming' world is an anomaly for security forces. As far as these areas and people were landlocked and introvert, they remained little threat to peace and sanctity. With Soviet aggression came the concept of holy Jihad; with Jihad came the green turbaned thousands of holy warriors who spoke the language of the prophet, the interaction of Wahabbi Saudis with medieval Pushtuns who were genetically tribal, and strong Wahabbi gave rise to new mutation. What Pakistan faces today is a new mutated form of threat; an intelligent bomb that is ideologically motivated, ready to die for houries reward, but technology has provided the connectivity and apparatus that makes killing a rather simple operation. The crime of taking life under new fatwas of eliminating 'debauchery' on earth has led to absolutely new threats, and to counter them, nations like Pakistan are torn between their ideological creation and desire to move on to the modern world.
One can mentally envisage the geographic location and only marvel at the way Pakistan sits at the apex of the Crescent of Instability. It is situated at the confluence of 2.5 billion people and shares borders with Iran, China, Russia (CIS) and of course India. A stable Pakistan is a must for the north of the Indian sub-continent and with introduction of global jihadists and radical elements, its stability is equally important for the House of Saud. Newsweek in its latest article asserts, 'Pakistani leaders created the Islamist monster that now operates with near impunity throughout the country. Militant Islamist groups that were originally recruited, trained and armed by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) have since become Islamabad's deadliest enemies.'
Let's get to the real facts and see who created the loathed ISI in the first place, an organ so detested. One does not need to go too far from the confession statements. In his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, Brzezinski says that assistance to the Afghan resistance was a tactic designed to bog down the Soviet army while the United States built up a deterrent military force in the Persian Gulf to prevent Soviet political or military penetration farther south
Brzezinski notes in his 2000 book The Geostrategic Triad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Brzezinski
The full story of the productive U.S.-China cooperation directed against the Soviet Union (especially in regard to Afghanistan), initiated by the Carter Administration and continued under Reagan, still remains to be told. ISI could have done nothing without the support of the CIA. Brzezinski, known for his hardline policies on the Soviet Union, initiated a campaign supporting mujaheddin in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which were run by Pakistani security services with financial support from the CIA and Britain's MI6. This policy had the explicit aim of promoting radical Islamist and anti-Communist forces to overthrow the secular communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) government in Afghanistan, which had been destabilized by coup attempts against Hafizullah Amin, the power struggle within the Soviet-supported parcham faction of the PDPA and a subsequent Soviet military intervention.
Pakistan fought this war as a proxy of the US and this cannot be overlooked in any fair analysis. Pakistan is a prime target for media scorn and condemnation for it has the all the ingredients that lend itself as an anathema to the guiding principles of Western civilisation. As a quintessential ideological state, founded for the Muslims of India, it unabashedly calls itself a bastion of Islam. Indeed, in stark contrast to democratic India, its history is littered with military coups and autocracy. The popular sentiment is that Pakistan, the "failed state", must be given a thrashing to castrate it and render its national effectiveness to that of a eunuch. Most likely, preparations are underway way to classify Pakistan as part of an extended axis of evil.
The Economist wholesale obsession with democracy is well meaning, however when 15 years old indoctrinated with deviant dogma and instead of going to schools are trying to blow up the ordinary people and leadership of the country some extra judicial steps may well have to be ignored. Guantanamo base exists right under the nose of a very activist Supreme Court but no one has dared try close it, our Chief Justice asked the 'Red Mosque' to be handed over to the same criminals within three weeks. Is this the kind of freedom we can afford, the case of missing persons, in a nation where thousands are looking to maim and kill, some missing persons picked up for interrogation and bust up of cells are part of collateral civil harm. But to cripple a state in name of civil liberties on one hand and threaten them to send to Stone Age on the other and ask them to fight thousands of lunatics is an inequitable call.
What is now Pakistan is the land that contained the invasion routes to India. Khyber Pass and Bolan Pass are not creations of Taliban or ISI, neither was Mongol Tamerlane or Nadir Shah, Ghauri or Ghaznavi. North of the sub-continent was the lawless land for millennia and remains so as of today. The heavy weight of violent North West Frontier Province of India by that 1947 partition was bequeathed to a state which was young and created on the concept of a homeland of Islam. It is tainted with blood. What changed in 1977 was that these landlocked warriors whose forays never extended beyond north of India were put in bed with the most radical elements of the Wahabi Islam.
The combination of young bin Ladens with zais and Pushtoons in thousands in their eagerness to bring USSR down brought about new dynamics of global Jihad. Once this huge apparatus of green turbaned radical Arabs and radical warriors of the Northwest were freed from Russians, they made plans to free the house of Islam from the usurpers. Those who brought USSR down should not have been left orphaned in a sign of desperate expediency. 911 was not planned in vacuum. Iraq - Afghan war was a result of political expediency and desertion by key allies. Result: a trillion dollars and thousands of American soldiers have died because of this short-sightedness. The peace dividend, as a result of the collapse of USSR, should have been shared with these fighters who were only renowned for fighting and nothing else.
The reason Pakistan is not Afghanistan or Iraq is because the historical circumstances differ. Afghanistan was a lawless buffer zone between British Indian and Imperial Russia for the last two centuries. Afghanistan's primary contribution to civilisation has been to deposit hordes of invading Turko-Iranian tribes upon the Indian sub-continent. This inherent tendency towards guns, mutual disagreements and lashkar (Holy War) is integral to Afghani Pashtun culture. The tribal loyalties which inhibit nationalism, the paucity of functional institutions and lack of a federal security force has contributed to the dysfunctional character of Afghanistan must be worked on. "Warlordism" is not a new phenomenon and the invasion by the USSR was the last straw on the camel's back that shattered any coherency Afghanistan might have had.
To compare Pakistan with Afghanistan or Iraq is an absurdity that, under normal circumstances, would merit no retort. However, given its popular prevalence, it must be comprehensively answered. One distinction from Iraq and Afghanistan that has saved this nation from disintegration and disaster is the one which is loathed the most, i.e., the Pakistan Army. Take this institution out and this will become a lawless land, a balkanized piece of geography. Saddam's Iraq was stable with a strong regimented Army. The biggest mistake of the Allies was to dismember that Army soon after the occupation. Debathification like Denazification did not work. In the land of Beethoven it did, however in the entire expanse of the Islamic world – from Morocco to Dar-us-Salam – the concept of a strong man leading the nation is deeply embedded. The House of Saud is propped on loyal National Guards, Egypt remains stable and quiet as its ex-Air force chief is entrenched in the business of running the country from the power driven by armed forces. Had there been no Pakistan, India would have had to contend with a 300-million strong Muslim minority with a keen awareness of their imperial past. Already in Kashmir it requires 700,000 troops to subdue and pacify the regional population, which has not reconciled itself to an imposed Indian identity. Can one truly imagine the consequences of a 300 million strong disaffected minority?
In spite of all this constant flux, there are only two nations who have not changed their alliance with America in the course of the last five decades, Israel and Pakistan. The close relationship between Pakistan and America was even further honed the day before yesterday when I was attending a reception at the London residence of the Pakistani ambassador to the US, the late Agha Hilaly. The excerpts of his diary, being read out by his son, gave us a poignant insight into the pivotal moments in history. In 1971, when he was ambassador to the States, there is a particular photograph of Agha Hilaly sitting in the Oval Office chatting amiably with President Nixon. Overleaf was a personal handwritten letter by President Nixon addressed to the Ambassador showing us pictures with Nixon in the Oval Office. But what surprised me the most was a note by Nixon to Hilaly stating how appreciative the former was of the latter's efforts that went beyond the call of duty. Nixon may have had an ignominious presidency but it was during his term that the US began the pivotal rapprochement with China through the use of Pakistan as a vital intermediary. The opening of China that has today made 1.4 trillion $'s of Chinese reserves help the cornerstone of global capitalism. However, now the nation which had a small but pivotal role nevertheless, that brought the Republicans into contact with Chou Enlai, is now cast as the new Satan by self-professed pundits like The Newsweek.
No Pakistan political democracy or military autocracy has even dreamed of undermining Pakistan's alliance with the United States of America. That is the cornerstone policy of the Pakistani military and political leadership as well as that of America. Failed nations, or those teetering on the precipice of collapse, cannot evolve without such fluid and flexible relations with greater powers.
America has a close friendship with Pakistan because it understands the nature of the Pakistani polity. The American army is famed for its use of military historians in interpreting current geopolitics. It has analysed the historical reasons for the disproportional size of Pakistan's Army. The region between the River Jhelum and Peshawar was the recruiting ground for British land forces during the British Raj. The British knew the inhabitants as the "martial races" and it was with armies comprised of these peoples that Col Nicholson in 1857 subdued the Sepoy mutiny in India.
The Sepoy rebellion occurred when Hindu-Muslim contingent soldiers of Uhud, Jansi and Lucknow restored the Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah Zuffar, to the throne in Delhi. This was fundamentally a rebellion by India in response to British rule, which was put down by the ancestors of the modern Pakistanis, the Pathans and the Punjabis. The manner in which they completed the conquest confirmed the historical discipline towards military ethics that had existed amongst these peoples since time immemorial. At the amazing speed of 27 miles a day this army reached Delhi, subdued it and suppressed the rebellion. Whose side were these proto-Pakistani troops fighting but for the British Empire? There has always been loyalty amongst the people of this region to the British Empire and especially to its army, a close affiliation that exists today with Pakistan remaining loyal to America.
There are fears of an Islamicisation of the army. However, even when General Zia was pursuing such a course, he carefully cultivated relations with America. The history of the 13th Lancer division is a poignant reminder of the loyalty of these people to their allies rather than a pan-Islamic Ummah. This Pathan division was commanded by a British commander and fought the Ottoman Empire (which was considered the Islamic Caliphate) in the Holy Land. For the Pathans to defeat the Ottomans in Palestine is emblematic of the origins of the Pakistan army. The Guide cavalry, the Probyn Horse, Hobson horse, the Baluch tribesmen and Punjabi infantry have had the honour and distinction to serve in the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Thousands of them lay buried in Sommes, Gallipoli, Suez and these soldiers were cannon fodder for the British Empire and served with distinction.
In 1947 Muslims constituted 32% of the Indian national Army whereas Muslim population of India was less than 12%. From day one of Pakistan's existence, the Army was the strongest institution in terms of manpower. Nearly 90% of the officers and soldiers of the Indian national army opted for Muslim Pakistan. The disproportionate level of armed forces in a newly built nation, from the very beginning, ensured permanence of the army in the future running of the country.
Another reason why 'Militarism' became so deeply entrenched in Pakistan is because the British never trusted the Indian south. They realised that Col Nicholson's men and the martial races were the recruiting grounds for the Indian Union army. This is why the Muslims have had a disproportionately large representation in the British army with the consequences being that the Pakistani army has become a very hierarchical and secular organisation, which takes immense pride in its British past.
The global ramifications of this is that the mutiny of Pakistani army or a bullet through Musharraf's head by a dissenting general cannot and will not occur because of the pride the army takes in tracing its roots to discipline. Colonels' coup like in Libya or Iraq is distant nonsense. When General Zia and his entire army command were wiped out in a plane crash there was no coup in Pakistan army for the next senior-most general took over. A counter point can be found in Britain where there is an orderly transition of power between premiers and so conversely in Pakistan there is an orderly transference of power between army chiefs.
One can denigrate Pakistan's lack of democracy, but it is incumbent to remember that it has more democracy than other Islamic nations. In this 'Emergency stint,' ritual condemnation of the general is an everyday routine. It is categorically flawed to infer any geopolitical analysis by relying on media coverage, for partisan journalists can cast distant nations in a certain light that will create an enduring impression.
The hostile relationship between India and Pakistan is a by-product of South Asian history where for 700 years India was ruled ruthlessly and merciless by the Muslim invaders from the north. The fact that their descendants could be cordoned in Pakistan, the north of the Sub-continent, is a wonderful happenstance for India's development. In my opinion it had a soothing effect on the subcontinent as millions of Muslims were able to form a separate nation state without internally disrupting the development of an Indian nation.
There is of course one readily supplied answer and that of Afghanistan. To the north of Pakistan it disintegrated under pressure from neighbouring nations and became a battlefield where rival nations could wage their proxy wars. Indeed it is doubtful whether even many Western nations would have been able to cope with the strain faced by Pakistan. An Indian army of nearly a million faces off Pakistan at the border and in the highlands of the Khyber Pass, Pakistan is pitted against the fanatical Islamic terrorist. Instead of helping them, to kick them down is foolhardy, who else is going to do the job if Pakistan as a federation is condemned?
'The Economists' or the west rarely ever ties King Abdullah's or President Mubarak's hands and ask them to fight OBL but with Musharraf they try to tie his hands and then ask him to deliver. Deliver what, where every single person in the political opposition fails to accept the complicity of Al-Qaida in murder of BB. They let the criminals go just to score political advantage to bring the President down; even 'The Economist' encouraged the idea of complicity when there is wholesale evidence of radicals' involvement, to encourage even the thought that state was involved is damage to poor Pakistanis. How much pain and ingratitude this poor nation can take, as a front line state they have share of the burden of Arab- Israeli conflict, the conflict of House of Saud, if ideology encourages them to be 'brothers to greater unity of Islam' what can Musharraf do? These are pains of centuries; the overnight connectivity has brought them to this modern age. We need time; we are looking to revive our renaissance under glaring eyes of The Economist, and CNN. Yellow journalism is about portraying unfounded allegations; to infer that BB was murdered by the state is as scandalous a thinking as some believe that 911 were carried out by US collusion. How much weight is given to those weirdoes who advance such extremists? The same army that led herculean efforts that 'The Economist' praised after the earthquake will help the country from these extreme radicals.
What could a poor country like Pakistan do? If you make a battle, defeat 'your' key enemy USSR, get the Berlin Wall down and then leave these warriors in the 'safe hands' of oil rich Wahabbis like Laden? What kind of diplomacy or strategy was this? Instant gratification and lack of knowledge of history and geography by the US strategists who wage global wars and leave unfinished business was the cause behind 911. Pakistan needs help and the last thing we want to create is a new vacuum by burdening a nation with wild accusations. For Bin Laden and his cohorts, the 'ideal world Jihad' would be a Pakistan run by people who can put it on a collision course with USA. The strategy is a simple shift from Iraqi theatre to Pakistan, make Pakistan the new Vietnam. The President's unpopularity is not for the right reasons but for the wrong ones; his hot pursuit of hinterland is considered un-Islamic and a western agenda. It is distressing to see that his biggest help to Pakistanis in making them a part of a civilised world is considered by some myopic people in the west as his dictatorial mindset.
Today, the biggest political charge against the present government is why it pursues the hunt for the Jihadists? Regretfully, the majority considers this as a pro west policy. In an ensuing vacuum, post an active Musharaf policy of waging a war against the radicals, we would face dilly-dallying leaders who will not be able to call upon the army to clean up the stables. The reason Musharaf/Bhutto alliance was so detested by the Laden was that the combined wrath of military might and popular support would have deluged him.
In forthcoming elections, Pakistanis will probably elect sensible leadership; the extremists are not even bothering to register as candidates, they are boycotting the elections; for them, bullets are better than ballots. It is not a coincidence that Pakistan happens to take the right decisions when it is vital to cooperate with the global community. A successful nation will retain its pragmatism in the face of global pressures and do its utmost to achieve global acceptance. A failed nation is the exact converse where the nation will retreat into hostile insularity and elicit condemnation by hegemonic powers.
Funnily enough, some do find this strange and rate other countries as far more unstable.
http://www.rateitall.com/t-21856-worlds-most-dangerous-country.aspx
Log In | Register
Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:01 AM EDT
iraq, afghanistan, israel, pakistan, hamas, world-news, suicide-bombing, bhutto, alqaeda, cordoba, pro-taliban, eshragi, hasan-khomieni
@''Vaccine, which shows that a large number of nurses (98% of them surveyed) – people who are trained to understand how vaccines are meant to work and how safe they are purported to be – are saying no to vaccination.''
