No to another Cold War

By Tariq Fatemi

WHEN President George Bush first met President Vladimir Putin, he claimed that having looked into the latter’s heart he had found in it a good man with whom he could do business.

One wonders what Bush is saying in the wake of Russia’s incursion into Georgia. Not surprisingly, the western media stirred up quite a sob story in Georgia’s favour, claiming that it was a small, defenceless victim at the hands of marauding Russian soldiers.

The reality however, is far more complex and goes back to the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. Truly, its result — the emergence of a sole superpower — represented a historic transformation, for it destroyed the concept of the balance of power enunciated as far back as 1648 in the Treaty of Westphalia. Western politicians and scholars jumped to the conclusion that the event confirmed the triumph of western democracy and capitalism and thus marked the ‘end of history’.

Consequently, the US embarked on a policy that showed scant regard for Russian interests. The chaotic years of Boris Yeltsin were taken advantage of, while Russia lay supinely in a state of drunken stupor. Yeltsin’s many transgressions, including his military assault on the duma were overlooked, Moscow’s regional and global issues were ignored, and in the meanwhile, the former communist states of Eastern and central Europe were made a part of the West’s fabric of economic and military alliances.

But Russia is a millennium-old country, with a glorious history of achievements, possessing tremendous resources — both economic and human. It was therefore inevitable that Putin’s strong and resolute leadership would refocus the nation’s energies on economic and military reconstruction. The galloping international oil and gas prices helped in filling up its coffers, enabling it to alter its bargaining power as well.

This newfound confidence enabled the Kremlin to exert influence far afield — claiming the North Pole and renewing nuclear bomber patrols near Guam and Scotland. But it was in the Caucuses where an increasingly assertive Kremlin decided to put its foot down, helped unwittingly by the irresponsible policies of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. By making a rash move to occupy the breakaway province of South Ossetia, Saakashvili may have wanted to prove his ‘nationalist’ credentials and enhance his ‘usefulness’ to the West.

But when Moscow responded with its own military incursion, he could do no more than fret that the Russians were repeating what the Soviets had done in earlier years, while senior US officials made the preposterous claim that such an action could not be permitted in this era. How ironic coming from an administration that had invaded not one but two sovereign states!

Saakashvili’s frustration at having been left to fend for himself was understandable. For long a favourite of the Bush administration, the former New York lawyer was viewed by Moscow as unreliable and an instrument to promote the West’s interests in Moscow’s backyard. As the Economist wrote, his thrust into South Ossetia “was foolish and possibly criminal”, and Gorbachev was right to observe: “Russia was dragged into the fray by the recklessness of Saakashvili. He would not have dared to attack without outside support. Once he did, Russia could not afford inaction.” Whether acting alone or at the behest of the US, Saakashvili’s grab for the enclaves has unleashed forces that are likely to have a deep, long-lasting impact not only on the region, but on East-West relations as well.

President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice have threatened to isolate Russia, while others have called for its expulsion from the G-8, as well as for keeping it out of the WTO. There have also been calls to rethink relations with Russia. But the rethinking needs to be directed at establishing a relationship of trust and mutual advantage, not to promote unilateral American advantage.

The US must also be careful not to push Russia against the wall. It has already made the mistake of basing its policy on two major fallacies. One, that Russia was inherently aggressive and therefore needed to be kept ‘encircled’ and two, that Russia had been so weakened by the Soviet Union’s disintegration that it would not be able to ever endanger the West.

It has, however, been proven again that nothing can be a more explosive mix than national humiliation and massive resources! Washington must not forget that it was the West that in inelegant haste brought in the former Soviet republics into economic and military alliances, while converting Nato into a global military force to be used at American behest to promote Washington’s global interests.

The latest provocation has been the placement of US missiles in Poland, ostensibly to counter the Iranian threat, a claim no one takes seriously. All this has only reinforced Russia’s resolve to assert its place under the sun.

Bush may see the Russian action in Georgia as directed against the West but it will have a far greater impact on the other states of the Caucuses and Caspian. Many of them have sizeable Russian minorities and long-established relations with Moscow. They cannot afford to be caught in a US-Russia confrontation. The energy pipelines too originate or go through this region and Europe would not want to see this area in a state of turmoil.

Moscow’s show of strength in Georgia, coupled with Washington’s failure to come to the latter’s aid, has made countries such as the Ukraine and Poland nervous. Some see this as confirming their fears that the bear’s claws remain as sharp as ever.

However, this would be a serious misreading of Russia’s intentions and interests. Any effort to create an anti-Russia coalition would be counter-productive, because Moscow recognises that its strategic objectives, such as bolstering its weight in world affairs, fortifying its presence in the Caucuses and regaining control over the region’s vital oil and gas transport corridor, can only be achieved in cooperation with the West.

The US too cannot expect to tackle the grave challenges of global terrorism, climate control, energy security and even peace in the Middle East, without Russia’s support and cooperation. A new Cold War would be utterly disastrous for us all.

Georgian Response

Moscow’s plan is to redraw the map of Europe
By Mikheil Saakashvili
Published: August 27 2008 18:22 | Last updated: August 27 2008 18:22
Any doubts about why Russia invaded Georgia have now been erased. By illegally recog-nising the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s president, made clear that Moscow’s goal is to redraw the map of Europe using force.

This war was never about South Ossetia or Georgia. Moscow is using its invasion, prepared over years, to rebuild its empire, seize greater control of Europe’s energy supplies and punish those who believed democracy could flourish on its borders. Europe has reason to worry. Thankfully, most of the international community has condemned the invasion and confirmed their unwavering support for Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Our first duty is to highlight Russia’s Orwellian tactics. Moscow says it invaded Georgia to protect its citizens in South Ossetia. Over the past five years it cynically laid the groundwork for this pretence, by illegally distributing passports in South Ossetia and Ab¬khazia, “manufacturing” Russian citizens to protect. The cynicism of Russia’s concern for ethnic minorities can be expressed in one word: Chechnya.
This cynicism has become hypocritical and criminal. Since Russia’s invasion, its forces have been “cleansing” Georgian villages in both regions – including outside the conflict zone – using arson, rape and execution. Human rights groups have documented these actions. Moscow has flipped the Kosovo precedent on its head: where the west acted to prevent ethnic cleansing, in Georgia ethnic cleansing is being used by Russia to consolidate its military annexation.
Other Russian lies have also been debunked. The most egregious was Moscow’s absurd claim on the eve of the invasion that Georgia was committing genocide in South Ossetia, with 2,000 civilian deaths. A week later, Moscow admitted that only 133 people had died. These were overwhelmingly military casualties and came after the Russian invasion. But the genocide claim served its goal. In a media era hungry for content, the big lie still works.
Russia’s campaign to redraw the map of Europe is based on the propagation of misinformation. On Wednesday on this page, Mr Medvedev asserted that Georgia attacked South Ossetia. In fact, our forces entered the conflict zone after Russia rolled its tanks on to our soil, passing through the Roki tunnel into South Ossetia, Georgia. Mr Medvedev also claimed Russia had no designs on our territory. Why then did it bomb and occupy Georgian cities such as Gori? Why does it continue to occupy our strategic port of Poti?
Moscow also counts on historical amnesia. It hopes the west will forget ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia drove out more than three-quarters of the local population – ethnic Georgians, Greeks, Jews and others – leaving the minority Abkhaz in control. Russia also wants us to forget that South Ossetia was run not by its residents (almost half were Georgian before this month’s ethnic cleansing) but by Russian officials. When the war started, South Ossetia’s de facto prime minister, defence minister and security minister were ethnic Russians with no ties to the region.
The next step in Russia’s invasion script, of disinformation and annexation, is regime change. If Moscow can oust Georgia’s democratically elected government, it can then intimidate other democratic European governments. Where will this end? What we know about Russia, and especially the current regime, is not encouraging.
Last week Vaclav Havel, the former Czech president, put us on alert: “Russia does not really know where it begins and where it ends.” He noted that the Moscow regime is “a lot more sophisticated” than the Soviets under Leonid Brezhnev. He should know – he was on the front line the last time Russia invaded a European country.
Mr Medvedev is now making menacing statements about Ukraine and Moldova and is replicating its Georgia strategy in the Crimea by distributing Russian passports. The message is clear. Russia will do as it pleases.
I believe the most potent western response to Russia is to stay united and firm by providing immediate material and political support. If Moscow is trying to overthrow our government using its lethal tools, let us resist with democratic tools that have sustained more than 60 years of Euro-Atlantic peace. Backing Georgia with Europe’s political and financial institutions is a powerful response. Regrettably, this story is no longer about my small country, but the west’s ability to stand its ground to defend a principled approach to international security and keep the map of Europe intact.
The writer is president of Georgia

Beginning of a new Cold War

Why I had to recognise Georgia’s breakaway regions

By Dmitry Medvedev

Published: August 26 2008 18:48 | Last updated: August 26 2008 18:48

On Tuesday Russia recognised the independence of the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It was not a step taken lightly, or without full consideration of the consequences. But all possible outcomes had to be weighed against a sober understanding of the situation – the histories of the Abkhaz and Ossetian peoples, their freely expressed desire for independence, the tragic events of the past weeks and inter­national precedents for such a move.

Not all of the world’s nations have their own statehood. Many exist happily within boundaries shared with other nations. The Russian Federation is an example of largely harmonious coexistence by many dozens of nations and nationalities. But some nations find it impossible to live under the tutelage of another. Relations between nations living “under one roof” need to be handled with the utmost sensitivity.

After the collapse of communism, Russia reconciled itself to the “loss” of 14 former Soviet republics, which became states in their own right, even though some 25m Russians were left stranded in countries no longer their own. Some of those nations were un­able to treat their own minorities with the respect they deserved. Georgia immediately stripped its “autonomous regions” of Abkhazia and South Ossetia of their autonomy.

Can you imagine what it was like for the Abkhaz people to have their university in Sukhumi closed down by the Tbilisi government on the grounds that they allegedly had no proper language or history or culture and so did not need a university? The newly independent Georgia inflicted a vicious war on its minority nations, displacing thousands of people and sowing seeds of discontent that could only grow. These were tinderboxes, right on Russia’s doorstep, which Russian peacekeepers strove to keep from igniting.

But the west, ignoring the delicacy of the situation, unwittingly (or wittingly) fed the hopes of the South Ossetians and Abkhazians for freedom. They clasped to their bosom a Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, whose first move was to crush the autonomy of another region, Adjaria, and made no secret of his intention to squash the Ossetians and Abkhazians.

Meanwhile, ignoring Russia’s warnings, western countries rushed to recognise Kosovo’s illegal declaration of independence from Serbia. We argued consistently that it would be impossible, after that, to tell the Abkhazians and Ossetians (and dozens of other groups around the world) that what was good for the Kosovo Albanians was not good for them. In international relations, you cannot have one rule for some and another rule for others.

Seeing the warning signs, we persistently tried to persuade the Georgians to sign an agreement on the non-use of force with the Ossetians and Abkhazians. Mr Saakashvili refused. On the night of August 7-8 we found out why.

Only a madman could have taken such a gamble. Did he believe Russia would stand idly by as he launched an all-out assault on the sleeping city of Tskhinvali, murdering hundreds of peaceful civilians, most of them Russian citizens? Did he believe Russia would stand by as his “peacekeeping” troops fired on Russian comrades with whom they were supposed to be preventing trouble in South Ossetia?

Russia had no option but to crush the attack to save lives. This was not a war of our choice. We have no designs on Georgian territory. Our troops entered Georgia to destroy bases from which the attack was launched and then left. We restored the peace but could not calm the fears and aspirations of the South Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples – not when Mr Saakashvili continued (with the complicity and encouragement of the US and some other Nato members) to talk of rearming his forces and reclaiming “Georgian territory”. The presidents of the two republics appealed to Russia to recognise their independence.

A heavy decision weighed on my shoulders. Taking into account the freely expressed views of the Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples, and based on the principles of the United Nations charter and other documents of international law, I signed a decree on the Russian Federation’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I sincerely hope that the Georgian people, to whom we feel historic friendship and sympathy, will one day have leaders they deserve, who care about their country and who develop mutually respectful relations with all the peoples in the Caucasus. Russia is ready to support the achievement of such a goal.

The writer is president of the Russian Federation

Marvi Memon on NA's

Marvi Memon on pushing a bill for Northern Areas

What was common between former President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Aaj TV anchor Syed Talat Hussein, and MNA Marvi Memon is their sporadic and marginal interest in taking a relatively favourable stand on the issue of constitutional rights for the people of GB. In a recent TV debate Talat Hussein tried to introduce the infant and fledgling struggle for rights and justice in NA’s, by inviting few of the so called elected members of the toothless NALA. In a similar vein Gen. Musharraf who ultimately became unpopular across the country had however a soft corner for the people of Giligit-Baltistan. Karakorum University, expansion of KKH, and upgrading NALA to a relatively respectable position will certainly form part of Musharraf’s legacy in Northern Areas. I think Marvi Memon could well be one of those people who have taken upon themselves to touch the lives of our people one way or the other. She has introduced this new bill in the National Assembly apparently to kick off a debate that would perhaps pave the way towards granting a provincial status to Giligit-Baltistan. I think this must be welcomed on several grounds.

While it has been pointed out that Marvi Memon failed to take such a step when her own government (PML-Q) was in power, and the latest attempt is nothing but a parochial political game to drag the incumbent government into a tasteless battle. However, I believe that this should be of marginal interest, or of no concern to us. The proposal should be welcomed because such steps not only seek to put the concerns of GB on the national agenda but they also expose both our well-wishers and ill-wishers alike, sitting in the corridors of power in Islamabad.

Let’s remember that when Congress was founded in 1886 by a Brit, it was intended to channel political views of Her Majesty’s Indian subjects through a proper platform. Viceroys and British establishment saw this move as an apparently harmless attempt to give Indian people some sense of political participation in the affairs of the state. A. O. Hume and his compatriots might never have imagined even in their wildest dreams that Indian National Congress would subsequently emerge as a formidable political force that would unleash a great wave of resistance to British Empire, ultimately dislodging the Raj from Indian sub-continent. Like A.O. Hume, Marvi Memon and others may have ulterior motives, business, or commercial or whatever we should however consider her desire to be part of our struggle. Such bills would surely serve as wake-up calls to members of Pakistan’s slumbering political class. After all we count and remember Major Brown a Scotsman as one of our heroes who helped us free ourselves from the Dogra Raj in 1949. History, including our own in GB is full of mysterious stories in which various forces have ‘conspired to help’ us what we have wanted and willed. Now, if we want our rights, identity and political struggle to be re-asserted then we should seize every opportunity to take forces of politics on our side.

The National Assembly bill tabled by Marvi should have elicited a healthy debate that could have helped sharpen the edges of political impasse on the question of Giligit-Baltistan. Very sadly members of the Pakistani ruling class choose to truncate this important concern of ours by not taking it seriously. Let us also remember the loathsome world ‘sensitive’ that has been uttered countless times by the members of the Pakistani establishment when it comes to answer a question regarding the problems of Gilgit-Baltistan. In response to Marvi’s proposal our so called Federal Minister for Northern Areas and Kashmir Affairs used the word ‘sensitive’ to project our issues as if we are some sort of a sacrificial animal who must be locked up until the time for the ritual is up. I sadly note that the deceptive word ‘sensitive’ is nothing but a big smokescreen that helps veil unwillingness of Pakistani establishment to seriously address issues of GB. When Kaira visits Giligit next time our people should make him realise that time of playing hide and seek game with the people of Giligt-Baltistan is over now.

Now is the time to snatch ‘sensitive’ from the vocabulary of our alien rulers sitting in Islamabad who have frustrated the political journey of the people of GB to achieve our long-due and deserved destiny of equality, liberty and brotherhood. We have nothing to lose but our subjugation and we have our deserved freedoms to be won.

The iminent breakup of Pakistan?

February 1, 2008

Op-Ed Contributor

Drawn and Quartered

By SELIG S. HARRISON

Washington

WHATEVER the outcome of the Pakistani elections, now scheduled for Feb. 18, the existing multiethnic Pakistani state is not likely to survive for long unless it is radically restructured.

Given enough American pressure, a loosely united, confederated Pakistan could still be preserved by reinstating and liberalizing the defunct 1973 Constitution, which has been shelved by successive military rulers. But as matters stand, the Punjabi-dominated regime of Pervez Musharraf is headed for a bloody confrontation with the country’s Pashtun, Baluch and Sindhi minorities that could well lead to the breakup of Pakistan into three sovereign entities.

In that event, the Pashtuns, concentrated in the northwestern tribal areas, would join with their ethnic brethren across the Afghan border (some 40 million of them combined) to form an independent “Pashtunistan.” The Sindhis in the southeast, numbering 23 million, would unite with the six million Baluch tribesmen in the southwest to establish a federation along the Arabian Sea from India to Iran. “Pakistan” would then be a nuclear-armed Punjabi rump state.

In historical context, such a breakup would not be surprising. There had never been a national entity encompassing the areas now constituting Pakistan, an ethnic mélange thrown together hastily by the British for strategic reasons when they partitioned the subcontinent in 1947.

For those of Pashtun, Sindhi and Baluch ethnicity, independence from colonial rule created a bitter paradox. After resisting Punjabi domination for centuries, they found themselves subjected to Punjabi-dominated military regimes that have appropriated many of the natural resources in the minority provinces — particularly the natural gas deposits in the Baluch areas — and siphoned off much of the Indus River’s waters as they flow through the Punjab.

The resulting Punjabi-Pashtun animosity helps explain why the United States is failing to get effective Pakistani cooperation in fighting terrorists. The Pashtuns living along the Afghan border are happy to give sanctuary from Punjabi forces to the Taliban, which is composed primarily of fellow Pashtuns, and to its Qaeda friends.

Pashtun civilian casualties resulting from Pakistani and American air strikes on both sides of the border are breeding a potent underground Pashtun nationalist movement. Its initial objective is to unite all Pashtuns in Pakistan, now divided among political jurisdictions, into a unified province. In time, however, its leaders envisage full nationhood. After all, before the British came, the Pashtuns had been politically united under the banner of an Afghan empire that stretched eastward into the Punjabi heartland.

The Baluch people, for their part, have been waging intermittent insurgencies since their forced incorporation into Pakistan in 1947. In the current warfare Pakistani forces are widely reported to be deploying American-supplied aircraft and intelligence equipment that was intended for use in Afghan border areas. Their victims are forging military links with Sindhi nationalist groups that have been galvanized into action by the death of Benazir Bhutto, a Sindhi hero as was her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

The breakup of Pakistan would be a costly and destabilizing development that can still be avoided, but only if the United States and other foreign donors use their enormous aid leverage to convince Islamabad that it should not only put the 1973 Constitution back into effect, but amend it to go beyond the limited degree of autonomy it envisaged. Eventually, the minorities want a central government that would retain control only over defense, foreign affairs, international trade, communications and currency. It would no longer have the power to oust an elected provincial government, and would have to renegotiate royalties on resources with the provinces.

In the shorter term, the Bush administration should scrap plans to send Special Forces into border areas in pursuit of Al Qaeda, which would only strengthen Islamist links with Pashtun nationalists. It should help secular Pashtun forces to compete with the Islamists by pushing for fair representation of Pashtun areas now barred from political participation.

It is often argued that the United States must stand by Mr. Musharraf and a unitary Pakistani state to safeguard Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. But the nuclear safeguards depend on the Pakistani Army as an institution, not on the president. They would not be affected by a break-up, since the nuclear weapons would remain under the control of the Punjabi rump state and its army.

The Army has built up a far-flung empire of economic enterprises in all parts of Pakistan with assets in the tens of billions, and can best protect its interests by defusing the escalating conflict with the minorities. Similarly, the minorities would profit from cooperative economic relations with the Punjab, and for this reason prefer confederal autonomy to secession. All concerned, including the United States, have a profound stake in stopping the present slide to Balkanization.

Selig S. Harrison is the director of the Asia program at the Center for International Policy and the author of “In Afghanistan’s Shadow,” a study of Baluch nationalism.

Hayy ibn Yaqdan

A medieval philosophicla novel written by Ibn Tufail in reponse to al-Ghazali's Tahafut al-Falsafa.This novel was subsequently translated into many European langauges and was widely read during the time whcih later came to be known as 'the Age of Reason' . We will read more about this important novel and discuss it by way of understanding the link between Arab culutre and early Renaissance activities across Europe.

The library is a great labyrithe ....You enter and you do not knwo whether you will come out.
..a character in Umberto Econ's The Name of the Rose