|
Home
Search
Subscribe Online
Archives
About
Us
Cartoons
Online
Book Store
E-Greetings
Jobs @ MG
Advertise
on MG
Our
Team
Contact Us
Muslim
Matrimonials
Our Advertisers
| |
Yes, it is this a war of civilizations - II
By Karamatullah K. Ghori
 Toronto:
It is still just a few weeks into the tragedy of New York and Washington,
but America's declared `New War` on global terrorism has all the trappings
and makings of a war of civilizations.
The war cry from Washington is that ` our western values` are under attack
by terrorists not prepared to share or tolerate them. The target has been
zeroed in not only on those who may have perpetrated the terrorist crimes
on American soil but all those ` sheltering and harbouring ` the
terrorists. That is where the rub lies. By widening the net to rope in all
those suspected of providing any kind of shelter to alleged terrorists,
George W. Bush has given himself all the room in the world to steer his
war against whoever makes the dubious list of villains in the American
eyes. That is the reason that a number of independent observers have
described September 20, the day Bush addressed a joint session of
Congress, and not september 11, as the day Bush declared war on all those
seen hostile to American ` values`.
Bush's speech to an audience already primed to prepare for a long
war-thanks, in no insignificant measure, to a media blitz that surpasses
any other before it-had all the elements of robust warmongering. He left
nothing to imagination, and there were no grey areas in his matter-of-fact
categorization of the world beyond American shores as being either friends
or foes. " Every nation in every region now has a decision to make.
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists ," was his
measure to classify a country for or against America. This leaves no
choice to any country which may still be juggling the pros and cons of
siding or not siding with Bush's new world order. True to his Texan
upbringing and his right-wing Republican moorings, Bush has simply put a
gun to the head of every sovereign state in the world with a one line
ultimatum: either stand by us, or drop dead.
The target, for the moment-at least for declared objective-is Osama bin
Laden wrapped up with his Taliban mentors in Afghanistan. Bush was
categorical in his war declaration that the Taliban must " hand over
every terrorist and every person in their support structure." In the
next breath, he read the Taliban the riot act : " They will hand over
the terrorists or they will share in their fate." And the ante was
raised further when Bush threw the gauntlet in a flourish of jingoistic
rhetoric. Our demands, he said, " are not open to negotiation or
discussion."
So, to make sure that the Taliban do get his message in no uncertain
terms, Bush has sent out his naval armada sailing across the high seas to
congregate in the waters close to the land-locked Afghanistan, in a show
of strength reminiscent of the Gulf War of a decade earlier. But the
military juggernaut being primed and calibrated seems too massive to
pulverise an emasculated Afghanistan alone. A fire power far exceeding one
that was brought to bear on Iraq in the Gulf War must have a much wider
sweep than the rugged hills of afghanistan. This dragnet which has just
started to roll does not seem poised to stop only at the gates of Kabul or
Kandahar. Bush is threatening to " smoke out " all the rogues
and terrorists from their caves and other hideouts;his Defence Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld-a cold warrior old guard-is speaking menacingly to "
drain the swamps " in a global search of terrorists. The U.S. fleets
, equipped with lethal fire power, are not wandering aimlessly on the high
seas. They are throwing a ring of steel around all major Islamic states in
the world. The ring could quickly be ignited to become cordons of fire at
a time of Washington's choosing, as articulated by Secretary of State
Colin Powell, himself a veteran of the Gulf War.
An array of formidable political and defence alliances also being
hurriedly assembled gives a clue to the ultimate agenda now on
Washington's anvil. NATO, of course, was the first to respond to Bush's
frantic call. Putin's Russia, likewise, lost no time to unsheath its
centuries-old hatred of Muslims around the world. Putin has offered
Washington not only intelligence- sharing but logistics as well. The
supine Latin American states, with the exception of Cuba, sheltered under
the canopy of the Organisation of American States ( OAS)-with its
headquarters within a few hundred meters of the White House in
Washington-did not lag behind and obligingly unfurled the banner of
Southern Hemisphere's unity. Even Japan, otherwise content with its
American-dictated pacifist constitution that forbids any overseas role for
its defence forces, seems eager to break loose from those shackles to lend
a helping hand in Washington's ` crusade`.
Even France, otherwise habitually inclined to pick a bone with Washington
on most foreign policy initiatives, is going head over heels in exuberance
to help Washington's war effort. History, an unmistakable guide, tells us
that in the two centuries of the Crusades, much of the burden of the Cross
against the Crescent was borne by France and England. With Tony Blair's
Britain already in cahoots with America, the history of the Crusades is as
well as repeating itself in the new millennium.
Italy, under billionaire Prime Minister Berlesconi, didn't want to lag
behind ,either. Berlesconi fired a salvo by proclaiming that western
civilization was " superior" to Islamic civilization. He refused
to recant or apologise for his brazen intervention. This does remind the
history buffs that the call for the Crusades, 12 centuries ago, had gone
out from Papal Rome which was then the nerve centre of the Christian west.
That pivot has now shifted to Washington.
Bush's choice of words, not to mention his body language, is most
revealing of his designs against those whom he holds responsible for
harbouring the terrorists. He chose, in full cognizance of the meaning of
the word, to describe his impending expeditions against the harbourers of
the terrorists,i.e. Muslims and Islamic states in this case, as a '
crusade." Although his apologists were quick to cover up the brunt of
his utterance and explain that he did not mean to insult or provoke
Muslims across the world, his message had already been delivered, loud and
clear, to his intended audience, both at home and abroad. Nothing could
possibly be more provocative to a Muslim ear than to hear from the
president of the lone super power of the world that he intended to
rekindle all the unsavoury memories of the Crusades.
But a crusade of sorts has already been unleashed against millions of
Muslims in the United States. The American news media has never been known
to be ferociously independent of the establishment but has sunk, in this
episode, to the lowest ebb of peddling all that the establishment wants it
to dish out. A massive brainwash of a gullible audience is going into
overdrive to bring them at par with the official agenda. The campaign of
Muslim-baiting is in full swing at all levels, alongside a frenzied wave
of nationalism sweeping across the continental United States. No wonder
Bush is basking in a public approval rating of 90 % plus. But the Muslims
are being treated with the thick end of the stick. They are being
off-loaded from commercial flights because other passengers feel
uncomfortable in their company. Islamic centres are being subjected to
close and rampant search and scrutiny. Congress is considering special
legislation to authorise wire-tapping and eaves-dropping of private phone
lines. All these portend not only a sweeping polarization of religious and
ethnic communities but also curtailment of those very ` freedoms` for the
defence of which Bush is threatening to unleash the might of America
against their detractors.
For the moment, though, Bush and his team is waging a psychological war
against the world of Islam. On the one hand it is tilting hard at the
windmills to assure the Islamic world that America's ` new war` is not
against Islam or Muslims across the board. America's allies and
apologists, including Tony Blair of Britain, have also joined the chorus
to denounce any notion of this war becoming a crusade. And yet, on the
other hand, the Islamic world is being subjected to wholesale blackmail to
either tie itself with the American apron string in its new war, or be
prepared to face America's wrath. It has been more than a week since
Powell bravely announced that a summary on ` evidence` of Bin Laden's
culpability in the crimes of terrorism will be released for world view.
However, he quietly retracted that claim within 24 hours because most of
the intelligence on the subject was found to be ` confidential.`
With America pursuing its cat and mouse agenda with a crusading zeal, the
question begging the answer is what is the Muslim world doing or thinking
at the cutting edge of the wedge.
The Arab world, as usual, is behaving in much the same way it has in the
decade since the end of the Gulf War: burying its head in the sand and
hoping that the storm swirling around it would, somehow, be blown away. It
has no game plan of its own-again, nothing unusual-and seems content to be
moved around like pawns on the global chessboard. The `moderates` amongst
the Arab rulers-the euphemism for ` friends of Washington`--are making all
the right noises to convince Washington that they are still on its right
side. In the words of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the long-serving Saudi
Ambassador to Washington, they are " at one" with Washington's
mission. Yet even the most loyal amongst them know that if America's ` New
War` really comes down to a crusade, it would be hard to contain the
popular sentiment of their cowed -down people within the parameters they
have been guarding for so long.
A worst case scenario for the Arab countries would be if Iraq, a favourite
shooting gallery for Washington since the end of the Gulf War, is targeted
again in the name of punishing it for sponsoring terrorism. The hawks in
Washington, led by the Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, are
vigorously waging a campaign for a ` final solution` by going after
`rogues` like Iran, Iraq and Sudan. They are still in a minority, but the
minority they represent has powerful backers and voices and might yet
prevail.
The predicament of a country like Pakistan-a self-proclaimed citadel of
Islam-is specially acute. Pakistan finds itself, once again, in the
familiar but unenviable role of a frontline state for Washington's
ambitions. The military regime of General Musharraf has so far moved with
finesse and by virtue of it made Pakistan's cooperation invaluable for any
military objectives of Washington in Afghanistan. Pakistan has a vested
interest in throwing its lot in the Washington-led global alliance against
the ruling Taliban in Kabul. Pakistan has paid a very heavy price , in
diplomatic isolation and embarrassment, for going out on a limb on behalf
of the Taliban. Now is Islamabad's opportunity to correct that faux pas.
The Taliban had also become a big liability for Islamabad, and this
unexpected turn of events presents Islamabad with a God-send chance to
jettison that liability. However, Musharraf should know better that there
is an immense reservoir of support for the Taliban amongst Pakistan's
orthodox clergy, and millions of their unsuspecting followers. The
religious obscurantists in Pakistan have acquired so much nuisance value
and street savvy in the past two decades that they can always bring out
tens of thousands of their unquestioning followers on the streets at a
short notice. They can cause serious problems to the Musharraf regime if
they suspect it of going overboard in its support to Washington's agenda
on Afghanistan. Things on the Pakistani street could become a lot messier
for the military junta if it is suspected of lending active logistical or
other help to Washington's punitive military plans against the Taliban.
General Musharraf should know where to draw a red line in his ambition to
eke out as much political mileage from Washington's renewed courting of
Pakistan's frontline role as General Ziaul Haq did when a similar
opportunity had knocked at his door. But Pakistan is still reaping a
bitter harvest from that legacy of Zia. Musharraf should remember that
while walking into Zia's footsteps.
For the moment, though, Islamabad is basking in the blaze of a media hype
about Pakistan's born-again role of a frontline state. General Musharraf
has decided to go whole hog with Washington's yet undefined agenda. In his
own words, he is " in the loop" with whatever is being planned
to rearrange the political chessboard of neighbouring Afghanistan. In its
bid to rattle the Taliban, Washington has, literally, taken the 86 year
old exiled King Zahir Shah out of the mothballs and is trying to catapult
him to the Afghan centre stage. He is prepared to play ball according to
Washington's game plan. The Northern Alliance, representing Afghanistan's
disparate minorities of Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks, has been prevailed
upon to accept the once discredited Zahir Shah as a figure head to rule as
a proxy in Washington's new Great Game in that part of the world.
Taliban's days, to borrow General Musharraf's words, are numbered. But
what he may not like to be reminded of is that there is a bitter legacy of
puppet regimes crafted by Washington in the past half a century; most have
ended up in the dustbin of history. q |
Subscribe
Now
|
