Today, the Great Game between the current two great empires — the USA and Russia — is going on all over the place from the Ukraine to Pakistan. It proves that geography is more important than ideology: Communism has come and gone, but the struggle goes on as if nothing has happened
“If he steals my cow, that is bad. If I steal his cow, that is good” — this moral rule was attributed by European racists to the Hottentots, an ancient tribe in Southern Africa.
It’s hard not to be reminded of this when the United States and the European countries cry out against Russia’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two provinces which seceded from the Republic of Sakartvelo, known in the West as Georgia.
Not so long ago, the Western countries recognised the Republic of Kosovo, which seceded from Serbia. The West argued that the population of Kosovo is not Serbian, its culture and language is not Serbian, and that therefore it has a right to independence from Serbia. Especially after Serbia had conducted a grievous campaign of oppression against them. I supported this view with all my heart. Unlike many of my friends, I even supported the military operation that helped the Kosovars to free themselves.
But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the saying goes. What’s true for Kosovo is no less true for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The population in these provinces is not Georgian, they have their own languages and ancient civilisations. They were annexed to Georgia almost by whim, and they have no desire to be part of it.
So what is the difference between the two cases? A huge one, indeed: the independence of Kosovo is supported by the Americans and opposed by the Russians. Therefore it’s good. The independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is supported by the Russians and opposed by the Americans. Therefore it’s bad. As the Romans said: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi — what’s allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to an ox.
I do not accept this moral code. I support the independence of all these regions.
In my view, there is one simple principle, and it applies to everybody: every province that wants to secede from any country has a right to do so. In this respect there is, for me, no difference between Kosovars, Abkhazians, Basques, Scots and Palestinians. One rule for all.
There was a time when this principle could not be implemented. A state of a few hundred thousand people was not viable economically, and could not defend itself militarily.
That was the era of the “nation state”, when a strong people imposed itself, its culture and its language, on weaker peoples, in order to create a state big enough to safeguard security, order and a proper standard of living. France imposed itself on Bretons and Corsicans, Spain on Catalans and Basques, England on Welsh, Scots and Irish, and so forth.
That reality has been superseded. Most of the functions of the “nation state” have moved to super-national structures: large federations like the USA, large partnerships like the EU. In those there is room for small countries like Luxemburg beside larger ones like Germany. If Belgium falls apart and a Flemish state comes into being beside a Walloon state, both will be received into the EU, and nobody will be hurt. Yugoslavia has disintegrated, and each of its parts will eventually belong to the European Union.
That has happened to the former Soviet Union, too. Georgia freed itself from Russia. By the same right and the same logic, Abkhazia can free itself from Georgia.
But then, how can a country avoid disintegration? Very simple: it must convince the smaller peoples which live under its wings that it is worthwhile for them to remain there. If the Scots feel that they enjoy full equality in the United Kingdom, that they have been accorded sufficient autonomy and a fair slice of the common cake, that their culture and traditions are being respected, they may decide to remain there. Such a debate has been going on for decades in the French-speaking Canadian province of Quebec.
The general trend in the world is to enlarge the functions of the big regional organisations, and at the same time allow peoples to secede from their mother countries and establish their own states. That is what happened in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Serbia and Georgia. That is bound to happen in many other countries.
Those who want to go in the opposite direction and establish, for example, a bi-national Israeli-Palestinian state, are going against the Zeitgeist — to say the least.
This is the historical background to the recent spat between Georgia and Russia. There are no Righteous Ones here. It is rather funny to hear Vladimir Putin, whose hands are dripping with the blood of Chechen freedom fighters, extolling the right of South Ossetia to secession. It’s no less funny to hear Mikheil Saakashvili likening the freedom fight of the two separatist regions to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.
The fighting reminded me of our own history. In the spring of 1967, I heard a senior Israeli general saying that he prayed every night for the Egyptian leader, Gamal Abdal Nasser, to send his troops into the Sinai peninsula. There, he said, we shall annihilate them. Some months later, Nasser marched into the trap. The rest is history.
Now Saakashvili has done precisely the same. The Russians prayed for him to invade South Ossetia. When he walked into this trap, the Russians did to him what we did to the Egyptians. It took the Russians six days, the same as it took us.
Nobody can know what was passing through the mind of Saakashvili. He is an inexperienced person, educated in the United States, a politician who came to power on the strength of his promise to bring the separatist regions back to the homeland. The world is full of such demagogues, who build a career on hatred, super-nationalism and racism. We have more than enough of them here, too.
But even a demagogue does not have to be an idiot. Did he believe that President Bush, who is bankrupt in all fields, would rush to his aid? Did he not know that America has no soldiers to spare? That Bush’s warlike speeches are being carried away by the wind? That NATO is a paper tiger? That the Georgian army would melt like butter in the fire of war?
I am curious about our part in this story.
In the Georgian government there are several ministers who grew up and received their education in Israel. It seems that the Minister of Defence and the Minister for Integration (of the separatist regions) are also Israeli citizens. And most importantly: that the elite units of the Georgian army have been trained by Israeli officers, including the one who was blamed for losing Lebanon War II. The Americans, too, invested much effort in training the Georgians.
I am always amused by the idea that it is possible to train a foreign army. One can, of course, teach technicalities: how to use particular weapons or how to conduct a battalion-scale manoeuvre. But anyone who has taken part in a real war (as distinct from policing an occupied population) knows that the technical aspects are secondary. What matters is the spirit of the soldiers, their readiness to risk their lives for the cause, their motivation, the human quality of the fighting units and the command echelon.
Such things cannot be imparted by foreigners. Every army is a part of its society, and the quality of the society decides the quality of the army. That is particularly true in a war against an enemy who enjoys a decisive numerical superiority. We experienced that in the 1948 war, when David Ben-Gurion wanted to impose on us officers who were trained in the British army, and we, the combat soldiers, preferred our own commanders, who were trained in our underground army and had never seen a military academy in their lives.
Only professional generals, whose whole outlook is technical, imagine that they could “train” soldiers of another people and another culture — in Afghanistan, Iraq or Georgia.
A well-developed trait among our officers is arrogance. In our case, it is generally connected with a reasonable standard of the army. If the Israeli officers infected their Georgian colleagues with this arrogance, convincing them that they could beat the mighty Russian army, they committed a grievous sin against them.
I do not believe that this is the beginning of Cold War II, as has been suggested. But this is certainly a continuation of the Great Game.
This appellation was given to the relentless secret struggle that went on all through the 19th century along Russia’s southern border between the two great empires of the time: the British and the Russian. Secret agents and not so secret armies were active in the border regions of India (including today’s Pakistan), Afghanistan, Persia and so on. The “North-West Frontier” (of Pakistan), which is starring now in the war against the Taliban, was already legendary then.
Today, the Great Game between the current two great empires — the USA and Russia — is going on all over the place from the Ukraine to Pakistan. It proves that geography is more important than ideology: Communism has come and gone, but the struggle goes on as if nothing has happened.
Georgia is a mere pawn in the chess game. The initiative belongs to the US: it wants to encircle Russia by expanding NATO, an arm of US policy, all along the border. That is a direct threat to the rival empire. Russia, on its part, is trying to extend its control over the resources most vital to the West, oil and gas, as well as their routes of transportation. That can lead to disaster.
When Henry Kissinger was still a wise historian, before he became a foolish statesman, he expounded an important principle: in order to maintain stability in the world, a system has to be formed that includes all the parties. If one party is left outside, stability is in danger.
He cited as an example the “Holy Alliance” of the great powers that came into being after the Napoleonic wars. The wise statesmen of the time, headed by the Austrian Prince Clemens von Metternich, took care not to leave the defeated French outside, but, on the contrary, gave them an important place in the Concert of Europe.
The present American policy, with its attempt to push Russia out, is a danger to the whole world. (And I have not even mentioned the rising power of China.)
A small country which gets involved in the struggle between the big bullies risks being squashed. That has happened in the past to Poland, and it seems that it has not learned from that experience. One should advise Georgia, and also the Ukraine, not to emulate the Poles but rather the Finns, who since world War II have pursued a wise policy: they guard their independence but endeavour to take the interest of their mighty neighbour into account.
We Israelis can, perhaps, also learn something from all of this: that it is not safe to be a vassal of one great Empire and provoke the rival empire. Russia is returning to our region, and every move we make to further American expansion will surely be countered by a Russian move in favour of Syria and Iran.
So let’s not adopt the Hottentot morality. It is not wise, and certainly not moral.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli peace activist who has advocated the setting up of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. He served three terms in the Israeli parliament (Knesset), and is the founder of Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc)
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
Saturday, 30 August 2008
Savouring the ultimate irony
Friday, August 29, 2008 By by Ayaz Amir
In a land which has always excelled at all kinds of ironies—none more striking than the constant gap between rhetoric and reality—the ultimate irony has to be Asif Ali Zardari as president of the Islamic Republic. Someone more vilified and demonised over the years than even that other target of righteous anger, Gen Yahya Khan, chosen by the flow of events to preside over the breakup of Pakistan.
Who would have thought it? If anyone had predicted six or seven months ago that Mr Zardari was a potential presidential candidate, he would have invited ridicule or been denounced as a fool. Yet, this is what is coming to pass. If this be not the hand of destiny, what is?
From Governor General Ghulam Muhammad (in his last days in power a certified madman) to President Pervez Musharraf—whom we have just got rid of, perhaps only to realise that we may be about to take a jump from the frying pan into the fire—we’ve had quite a collection of heroes as our presidents. Set to join this pantheon is Asif Zardari.
Not the least of the ironies surrounding this imminent development is the circumstance that, although Zardari owes his rise to political prominence to his late wife, Benazir Bhutto, the question of his being considered for president would simply not have arisen had she been alive. The conventional wisdom prevailing in Pakistan People’s Party circles prior to Ms Bhutto’s tragic death was that her interests and those of her party were best served if Mr Zardari was kept away from the spotlight.
But into the spotlight he was thrust when untimely death removed her from the scene, making him the focal point around which the party rallied. He always had his detractors, within the party influential Sindhi politicos who found it hard to stomach the idea of being led by a Zardari (Zardaris not exactly being very high in the hierarchy of Sindhi politics), and outside it others who were in turns appalled and fascinated by his reputation for corruption.
But had he not seized the reins firmly the PPP would have been in trouble. It wasn’t easy filling Benazir Bhutto’s shoes but, on the whole, he managed the transition after her death pretty smoothly and, unlike the PML-N leadership which was torn between the merits of participation and a boycott, was very clear in his mind that the key to moving beyond the Musharraf era lay in election participation. As we can now see, this was the only correct strategy, as Imran Khan, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Mahmood Achakzai, et al, who took the boycott route to political irrelevance, have opportunity enough to contemplate.
The coalition was a good thing and the PPP and the PML-N were not playing false with each other when they entered into it. It was the strength of the coalition which made government-formation so easy at the centre and in Punjab and the other three provinces. And it was the same factor, amongst others, no doubt, which strengthened Zardaris’s hands, enabling him to pour cold water so easily over Amin Fahim’s overripe ambitions.
The judges’ issue was the rock on which the fragile barque of the coalition has finally split. Zardari has few excuses to make regarding this issue. He shouldn’t have made promises and entered into solemn commitments meant only to be broken. He had his reservations about Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudry right from the start. But he should have been more open about them in his discussions with Nawaz Sharif, instead of following a course of action inviting charges of betrayal and even of treachery, and leading to the first signs of bad blood between the PPP and the PML-N since the elections.
People at large also feel betrayed because it was not for this that they delivered such a kick to the Musharraf order on Feb 18. Any opinion poll would tell us that there was overwhelming support in favour of the coalition surviving and getting a grip on the many problems facing the country. While those problems remain unaddressed conditions are being created for the PPP and the PML-N to go back to the bickering and conflict which was the hallmark of their politics in the 1990s.
Stability, above all, is what Pakistan needs at this juncture. The key to getting rid of Musharraf was the unity of the coalition. The need for this unity has not disappeared. The Americans are breathing down our necks, asking us to “do more” in FATA. We follow this advice blindly and keep chanting the mantra that America’s war is our war, and we risk getting sucked further into a spiral of conflict over which we will have little control. But we can resist this pressure and think priorities out for ourselves only if the two big political parties stay together, at least until the next elections, whenever they come.
Anyway, in the shape of a Zardari presidency the improbable is about to happen, My Lord Saeeduzaman Siddiqui’s candidacy, and friend Mushahid Hussain’s posturing—Mushahid a candidate of Musharraf’s party, the Q League—notwithstanding. For better or worse we will have to live with the consequences of this development. When Ronald Reagan became US president in 1980 there was no shortage of people tending to dismiss him as a B-grade actor. He went on to become one of the most influential presidents of recent times. It won’t do to dismiss Zardari as someone of no consequence, because everything about him should tell us that as president he won’t be a pushover. So it is best to size him up more realistically.
He won Benazir Bhutto’s hand in his own right, which was no mean undertaking. (Someone else trying to woo Ms Bhutto was the Customs officer, Shuja Shah, who, as legend has it, made the fatal mistake of writing to Gen Zia to seek permission to propose to Benazir Bhutto. This he did on the advice of Pir Ali Muhammad Rashdi, Sindhi politician and columnist, who reportedly said that a job in Customs was not worth sacrificing even for a daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. One can only wonder what his thoughts on the subject would be now.)
Living in his wife’s shadow while retaining his own identity—even if that meant nurturing a reputation for cutting sleazy deals and promoting a culture of cronyism—was also not a small achievement. Look also at the way all the charges of corruption against him, most of them reputedly well-grounded, have fallen by the wayside. Even money-laundering charges in Swiss courts, potentially a danger point, have been dropped.
At one time a congressional sub-committee in Washington investigated Zardari’s foreign accounts, Shaukat “Shortcut” Aziz, then in Citibank, also being called upon to testify. All this is documented but the trail has gone cold or has been allowed to get cold. The Americans know all about it. Let’s just hope they don’t have any kind of hold on President-to-be Zardari, because if they do it only further complicates our security situation. A president open to blackmail…takes us into the realm of the unthinkable.
A bad sign about the future is the flourishing of cronyism in Islamabad these days. All those considered the usual suspects in previous PPP dispensations are back in position or are waiting in the wings to make a comeback. What about the reputation for sleaze and corruption? When Chaudry Shujaat and Pervaiz Elahi rose to power under Musharraf I thought this was one family that had no need to make more money. I was proved wrong. Are we about to see another edition of Mr Ten Percent or a break with the past? The jury has to be out on this one.
In the domain of national security we face another danger, and that comes from the American apologists holding key positions in the present government. They range from Hussain Haqqani in Washington to Maj Gen Mahmud Durrani and my friend Interior Adviser Rehman Malik in Islamabad. If they continue to influence decision-making we are in for some more hard times.
Email: chakwal@comsats.net.pk
In a land which has always excelled at all kinds of ironies—none more striking than the constant gap between rhetoric and reality—the ultimate irony has to be Asif Ali Zardari as president of the Islamic Republic. Someone more vilified and demonised over the years than even that other target of righteous anger, Gen Yahya Khan, chosen by the flow of events to preside over the breakup of Pakistan.
Who would have thought it? If anyone had predicted six or seven months ago that Mr Zardari was a potential presidential candidate, he would have invited ridicule or been denounced as a fool. Yet, this is what is coming to pass. If this be not the hand of destiny, what is?
From Governor General Ghulam Muhammad (in his last days in power a certified madman) to President Pervez Musharraf—whom we have just got rid of, perhaps only to realise that we may be about to take a jump from the frying pan into the fire—we’ve had quite a collection of heroes as our presidents. Set to join this pantheon is Asif Zardari.
Not the least of the ironies surrounding this imminent development is the circumstance that, although Zardari owes his rise to political prominence to his late wife, Benazir Bhutto, the question of his being considered for president would simply not have arisen had she been alive. The conventional wisdom prevailing in Pakistan People’s Party circles prior to Ms Bhutto’s tragic death was that her interests and those of her party were best served if Mr Zardari was kept away from the spotlight.
But into the spotlight he was thrust when untimely death removed her from the scene, making him the focal point around which the party rallied. He always had his detractors, within the party influential Sindhi politicos who found it hard to stomach the idea of being led by a Zardari (Zardaris not exactly being very high in the hierarchy of Sindhi politics), and outside it others who were in turns appalled and fascinated by his reputation for corruption.
But had he not seized the reins firmly the PPP would have been in trouble. It wasn’t easy filling Benazir Bhutto’s shoes but, on the whole, he managed the transition after her death pretty smoothly and, unlike the PML-N leadership which was torn between the merits of participation and a boycott, was very clear in his mind that the key to moving beyond the Musharraf era lay in election participation. As we can now see, this was the only correct strategy, as Imran Khan, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Mahmood Achakzai, et al, who took the boycott route to political irrelevance, have opportunity enough to contemplate.
The coalition was a good thing and the PPP and the PML-N were not playing false with each other when they entered into it. It was the strength of the coalition which made government-formation so easy at the centre and in Punjab and the other three provinces. And it was the same factor, amongst others, no doubt, which strengthened Zardaris’s hands, enabling him to pour cold water so easily over Amin Fahim’s overripe ambitions.
The judges’ issue was the rock on which the fragile barque of the coalition has finally split. Zardari has few excuses to make regarding this issue. He shouldn’t have made promises and entered into solemn commitments meant only to be broken. He had his reservations about Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudry right from the start. But he should have been more open about them in his discussions with Nawaz Sharif, instead of following a course of action inviting charges of betrayal and even of treachery, and leading to the first signs of bad blood between the PPP and the PML-N since the elections.
People at large also feel betrayed because it was not for this that they delivered such a kick to the Musharraf order on Feb 18. Any opinion poll would tell us that there was overwhelming support in favour of the coalition surviving and getting a grip on the many problems facing the country. While those problems remain unaddressed conditions are being created for the PPP and the PML-N to go back to the bickering and conflict which was the hallmark of their politics in the 1990s.
Stability, above all, is what Pakistan needs at this juncture. The key to getting rid of Musharraf was the unity of the coalition. The need for this unity has not disappeared. The Americans are breathing down our necks, asking us to “do more” in FATA. We follow this advice blindly and keep chanting the mantra that America’s war is our war, and we risk getting sucked further into a spiral of conflict over which we will have little control. But we can resist this pressure and think priorities out for ourselves only if the two big political parties stay together, at least until the next elections, whenever they come.
Anyway, in the shape of a Zardari presidency the improbable is about to happen, My Lord Saeeduzaman Siddiqui’s candidacy, and friend Mushahid Hussain’s posturing—Mushahid a candidate of Musharraf’s party, the Q League—notwithstanding. For better or worse we will have to live with the consequences of this development. When Ronald Reagan became US president in 1980 there was no shortage of people tending to dismiss him as a B-grade actor. He went on to become one of the most influential presidents of recent times. It won’t do to dismiss Zardari as someone of no consequence, because everything about him should tell us that as president he won’t be a pushover. So it is best to size him up more realistically.
He won Benazir Bhutto’s hand in his own right, which was no mean undertaking. (Someone else trying to woo Ms Bhutto was the Customs officer, Shuja Shah, who, as legend has it, made the fatal mistake of writing to Gen Zia to seek permission to propose to Benazir Bhutto. This he did on the advice of Pir Ali Muhammad Rashdi, Sindhi politician and columnist, who reportedly said that a job in Customs was not worth sacrificing even for a daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. One can only wonder what his thoughts on the subject would be now.)
Living in his wife’s shadow while retaining his own identity—even if that meant nurturing a reputation for cutting sleazy deals and promoting a culture of cronyism—was also not a small achievement. Look also at the way all the charges of corruption against him, most of them reputedly well-grounded, have fallen by the wayside. Even money-laundering charges in Swiss courts, potentially a danger point, have been dropped.
At one time a congressional sub-committee in Washington investigated Zardari’s foreign accounts, Shaukat “Shortcut” Aziz, then in Citibank, also being called upon to testify. All this is documented but the trail has gone cold or has been allowed to get cold. The Americans know all about it. Let’s just hope they don’t have any kind of hold on President-to-be Zardari, because if they do it only further complicates our security situation. A president open to blackmail…takes us into the realm of the unthinkable.
A bad sign about the future is the flourishing of cronyism in Islamabad these days. All those considered the usual suspects in previous PPP dispensations are back in position or are waiting in the wings to make a comeback. What about the reputation for sleaze and corruption? When Chaudry Shujaat and Pervaiz Elahi rose to power under Musharraf I thought this was one family that had no need to make more money. I was proved wrong. Are we about to see another edition of Mr Ten Percent or a break with the past? The jury has to be out on this one.
In the domain of national security we face another danger, and that comes from the American apologists holding key positions in the present government. They range from Hussain Haqqani in Washington to Maj Gen Mahmud Durrani and my friend Interior Adviser Rehman Malik in Islamabad. If they continue to influence decision-making we are in for some more hard times.
Email: chakwal@comsats.net.pk
Community: alien concept for Pakistan?
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Dr Amin A Gadit
In recent times, it has been observed that community mindedness is fast disappearing in our nation. Historically, when Pakistan became independent in 1947, there was visible cohesion among people who are bound by emotions, national spirit and brotherhood. This was somewhat similar to the Ansar and Mohajireens in the Holy Prophet's era. There was a declaration that Pakistan was built for Muslims all over the world where they can practice their religion in its true spirit and philosophy. Though people belonged to different cultures, spoke different languages but they all were united under one banner and made numerous sacrifices for their independent homeland. There have been a number of jolts in the political arena of Pakistan since its earlier days.
Then, after the demise of the father of the nation, people were unable to focus their attention on any leader because of the type of governance and policies they supported. At this crucial time, conspiracies started to weaken the foundation of the country. It has always been said that there were 'hidden hands' but no one has ever known anything clear about this. People in those years were emotionally fragile and hence were manipulated. The concept of one nation started getting blurred by slogans for five different nations, Bengalis, Punjabis, Pakhtoons, Baluchis, Sindhis and this error was introduced by people who had a 'hidden agenda' and were never sincere to Pakistan.
The feudal system and focal kingdoms added momentum to this thought process. The national spirit was eroded by design and the perpetrators were successful in doing so by poisoning the thoughts to the extent that each nation within the country started identifying themselves as individual communities with nothing in common with the other communities. The worst example was witnessed in separation of the east wing of the country. The major compounding factor was the very low literacy level which, to date, has not reached appropriate proportion comparing in comparison with neighbouring states. Education in Pakistan by virtue of low priority was instrumental in blocking polished thought processes and arrested the development of psychological insight in terms of mutual care and understanding.
It appears that at different stages of development, various subtle psychological processes were operational, which gradually found a place in people's mindsets. In time, every nation started working for its own interest and each province of Pakistan started acquiring the sense of deprivation, discrimination and community prejudice. Later, another group was established which believed that their rights were sabotaged and were not accorded due recognition by any government. This group was distinct in the way that it did not fall into any particular category as they originally migrated from India and were called 'refugees'. Soon, there was another recognised community in Sindh known as 'Mohajirs'.
Further cracks came in when other provinces started to feel that the successive governments were failing in giving due provincial autonomy and rights. Gross unemployment and rising poverty further weakened the social fabric. But this malady was deeply coloured by massive corruption at all levels. Still Pakistan ranks very high when we talk about 'poverty line'; an enormous number of the population is deprived of basic needs of life. In a mega city such as Karachi there is dearth of electricity, water and gas. Economic progress has been made by an elite group in Pakistan; they get every luxury under the sun while a contrasting picture is that of people in majority living under abject poverty.
There is a money race as a result of which the sophisticated 'middle class' is fast disappearing. This leaves two distinct classes: the very rich and the very poor. This economic disparity has caused a huge psychological damage and promoted unhealthy behaviour among both the rich and poor. Corruption is so deep rooted in today's Pakistan that one cannot get anything, even rightly deserved, without bribery. The dream of a welfare state was never realised in our country which was perhaps on the agenda at the time of independence. The rulers had no time to look after the condition of the people who they ruled; instead, they were busier looking after their own welfare. Hence, the common people had no role models to follow. Faulty learning comes from high ups and it has rightfully transpired to the people.
Further bifurcation came when our religious leaders failed to inculcate the spirit of brotherhood which is the essence of religion. Earlier, the history had witnessed frictions among different sects which were perpetrated by a number of groups claiming superior understanding of religion over each other. This has created distances among people who are further alienated from each other. Constant suppression, insecurity, fears and frustration has caused a marked psychological fragility among the people. There is an atmosphere of distrust and mistrust among people which has ripened over the years and culminated to the point that the national spirit, mutual respect and care for each other is fast disappearing. People generally avoid helping and caring for each other for the fear of negative repercussions on one hand and microscopic hatred on the other hand based on all the aforementioned factors.
The people of Pakistan have undergone a severe emotional turmoil over the years that has resulted in emotional numbing, carelessness, self-centeredness, aggression, frustration and anxiety. This scenario has washed away the tender emotions of care and love. Also, in the wake of worldly gains, cohesion with religion has also weakened to the extent that even the basic principle of religion "huqooq-ul-ibad" (rights of people) are totally forgotten and are disregarded. Ironically, none of our leaders after Mr Jinnah endeavoured to inculcate this spirit; no role models emerged from religious or community groups. Countries that have progressed are because of the national spirit and community-mindedness. It is high time; we should do something to revive that spirit before it is too late.
The scenario may not be that bleak as there are good people somewhere around us who can take this initiative and emerge as 'role models'. We may get success in re-awakening the community spirit as the nation has temporarily shown unity and cohesion on at least two occasions: during the 1965 war and the recent earthquake. Media can play an effective and definitive role. Let's think deeply and listen to the inner voice. Hope to see a better tomorrow.
The writer is a psychiatrist based in Canada. Email: amin.muhammad@ med.mun.ca
Dr Amin A Gadit
In recent times, it has been observed that community mindedness is fast disappearing in our nation. Historically, when Pakistan became independent in 1947, there was visible cohesion among people who are bound by emotions, national spirit and brotherhood. This was somewhat similar to the Ansar and Mohajireens in the Holy Prophet's era. There was a declaration that Pakistan was built for Muslims all over the world where they can practice their religion in its true spirit and philosophy. Though people belonged to different cultures, spoke different languages but they all were united under one banner and made numerous sacrifices for their independent homeland. There have been a number of jolts in the political arena of Pakistan since its earlier days.
Then, after the demise of the father of the nation, people were unable to focus their attention on any leader because of the type of governance and policies they supported. At this crucial time, conspiracies started to weaken the foundation of the country. It has always been said that there were 'hidden hands' but no one has ever known anything clear about this. People in those years were emotionally fragile and hence were manipulated. The concept of one nation started getting blurred by slogans for five different nations, Bengalis, Punjabis, Pakhtoons, Baluchis, Sindhis and this error was introduced by people who had a 'hidden agenda' and were never sincere to Pakistan.
The feudal system and focal kingdoms added momentum to this thought process. The national spirit was eroded by design and the perpetrators were successful in doing so by poisoning the thoughts to the extent that each nation within the country started identifying themselves as individual communities with nothing in common with the other communities. The worst example was witnessed in separation of the east wing of the country. The major compounding factor was the very low literacy level which, to date, has not reached appropriate proportion comparing in comparison with neighbouring states. Education in Pakistan by virtue of low priority was instrumental in blocking polished thought processes and arrested the development of psychological insight in terms of mutual care and understanding.
It appears that at different stages of development, various subtle psychological processes were operational, which gradually found a place in people's mindsets. In time, every nation started working for its own interest and each province of Pakistan started acquiring the sense of deprivation, discrimination and community prejudice. Later, another group was established which believed that their rights were sabotaged and were not accorded due recognition by any government. This group was distinct in the way that it did not fall into any particular category as they originally migrated from India and were called 'refugees'. Soon, there was another recognised community in Sindh known as 'Mohajirs'.
Further cracks came in when other provinces started to feel that the successive governments were failing in giving due provincial autonomy and rights. Gross unemployment and rising poverty further weakened the social fabric. But this malady was deeply coloured by massive corruption at all levels. Still Pakistan ranks very high when we talk about 'poverty line'; an enormous number of the population is deprived of basic needs of life. In a mega city such as Karachi there is dearth of electricity, water and gas. Economic progress has been made by an elite group in Pakistan; they get every luxury under the sun while a contrasting picture is that of people in majority living under abject poverty.
There is a money race as a result of which the sophisticated 'middle class' is fast disappearing. This leaves two distinct classes: the very rich and the very poor. This economic disparity has caused a huge psychological damage and promoted unhealthy behaviour among both the rich and poor. Corruption is so deep rooted in today's Pakistan that one cannot get anything, even rightly deserved, without bribery. The dream of a welfare state was never realised in our country which was perhaps on the agenda at the time of independence. The rulers had no time to look after the condition of the people who they ruled; instead, they were busier looking after their own welfare. Hence, the common people had no role models to follow. Faulty learning comes from high ups and it has rightfully transpired to the people.
Further bifurcation came when our religious leaders failed to inculcate the spirit of brotherhood which is the essence of religion. Earlier, the history had witnessed frictions among different sects which were perpetrated by a number of groups claiming superior understanding of religion over each other. This has created distances among people who are further alienated from each other. Constant suppression, insecurity, fears and frustration has caused a marked psychological fragility among the people. There is an atmosphere of distrust and mistrust among people which has ripened over the years and culminated to the point that the national spirit, mutual respect and care for each other is fast disappearing. People generally avoid helping and caring for each other for the fear of negative repercussions on one hand and microscopic hatred on the other hand based on all the aforementioned factors.
The people of Pakistan have undergone a severe emotional turmoil over the years that has resulted in emotional numbing, carelessness, self-centeredness, aggression, frustration and anxiety. This scenario has washed away the tender emotions of care and love. Also, in the wake of worldly gains, cohesion with religion has also weakened to the extent that even the basic principle of religion "huqooq-ul-ibad" (rights of people) are totally forgotten and are disregarded. Ironically, none of our leaders after Mr Jinnah endeavoured to inculcate this spirit; no role models emerged from religious or community groups. Countries that have progressed are because of the national spirit and community-mindedness. It is high time; we should do something to revive that spirit before it is too late.
The scenario may not be that bleak as there are good people somewhere around us who can take this initiative and emerge as 'role models'. We may get success in re-awakening the community spirit as the nation has temporarily shown unity and cohesion on at least two occasions: during the 1965 war and the recent earthquake. Media can play an effective and definitive role. Let's think deeply and listen to the inner voice. Hope to see a better tomorrow.
The writer is a psychiatrist based in Canada. Email: amin.muhammad@ med.mun.ca
Expecting miracles from jackasses
Friday, May 30, 2008
Ayaz Amir
A strange nation we are, expecting wisdom from morons, radicalism from born opportunists, and virtue from knaves whose principal claim to fame is daylight national robbery.
What do we take the national scene to be, the result of a Nepalese revolution or a Chinese long march? Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan after a deal brokered by the Yanks in whose prowess she had invested all her hopes. Nawaz Sharif's return to the country came about as a result of Saudi royal intervention. Hard to detect the glimmers of any Che Guevarism in either of these Roman triumphs.
Musharraf took off his uniform not because a million men and women, torches in hand, had besieged Army House but because the Yanks were twisting his elbow and support for him within the army command was waning. The lawyers' movement played a vital part in weakening him but lawyers take on too much upon themselves when they portray themselves as the heralds of the changes that have swept Pakistan.
All the leaders of the movement – from Aitzaz Ahsan to Munir A Malik to Ali Ahmed Kurd – are my friends. They are possessed of admirable qualities but modesty or humility, alas, is not the most conspicuous among them. They expect the world to change but themselves refuse to change, still stuck in the heady feelings generated by their movement last year. If the tide flows it also ebbs. Critical points come and pass. Their movement has lost its momentum and something more than Aitzaz's driving skills – his uncanny ability to arrive at every destination at least ten hours late – is needed to regain it.
The people made their views known on Feb 18 but only because they were given an opportunity to do so. If they had not been given that opportunity does anyone think that they would have taken to the streets and stormed the citadels of power? In which make-believe world do we live? Our capacity for being pushed around is virtually inexhaustible and our political class, far from honing the tools of political resistance, has arrived at the last stages of moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
If the Feb elections had been shelved, Pakistan would have dug a deeper hole for itself but the masses would not have stirred. A nation that could endure Ayub Khan for eleven years, that knight of darkness – Ziaul Haq – for another eleven, and a certified mediocre like Musharraf, a disaster in both war and peace, for eight and a half years, can put up with anything. Still the fact remains that whether the Yanks played around with the props on our political stage or the Saudi Royals had a hand in altering some of the background tapestry, elections were held, Musharraf and his pack of political jackals were roundly humiliated, and political parties reviled and abused, and kept out in the cold all these years, swept to a dramatic victory.
So the people were not remiss in expecting great things to happen. What they have received instead is another extended lesson in the workings of political bankruptcy, the political parties in whom the people had reposed their trust proving epic failures at political management. Instead of dealing with real issues and trying to figure out how to get the country out of the hole in which it is stuck they are chasing shadows, evening out old scores and charging at toothless dragons that have lost the power to spout any fire from their raging nostrils.
Zardari, to his credit, is being the man that he always was: interested in power and money. Courtesy of the deal struck with Musharraf (through the Yanks) he has just won himself the biggest reprieve in Pakistani history, all cases against him – and it was not easy counting them – having been wound up. The people of Pakistan may yet be awaiting their miracle but he has received his.
My Lord Dogar, presently adorning the highest chair in the Supreme Court, is the agent of this miracle. And the people of Pakistan, chumps as ever, expect Zardari to put Dogar in the doghouse while My Lord Iftikhar Chaudhry, symbol and hero of the lawyer-cum-judicial movement, sweeps into the Supreme Court. This won't happen in the real world as long as Zardari is around. So what he is doing is smiling all the time and spouting some of the worst clichés about institution-building that the people of Pakistan have had to put up with for a long time.
The people of Pakistan – ordinary people, that is, because some have had a ball – have had to put up with much all these years. But having to endure lectures on politics from Mr Zardari takes the prize. Those in the charmed circle of the PPP elect – that is, in Zardari's good graces and therefore enjoying office or importance – go about with trained smiles on their faces. Sherry, I said, was becoming a competent minister. She is also turning into a sophisticated version of the dreaded Mohammad Ali Durrani.
But imagine the plight of those not in this charmed circle. They have to take in all that they are subjected to without wincing or saying anything in return. Our political parties, all of them, produce no rebels. They turn out courtiers instinctively aware that discretion is the better part of valour.
So the nation is being fed a series of fibs as extended as the thousand and one tales of the Arabian Nights: all about constitutional packaging, etc. Zardari misses not a step when reciting this litany. Farooq Naek, the law minister, as he goes through the same paces looks a deeply unhappy man. Things are whirling out of control and the economy is sinking and the rupee taking a further dip every day but the political charade being played out in Islamabad goes on, each day bringing a fresh twist to it.
And what is that other great party of the people, the PML-N, doing? Heaping fresh imprecations on Musharraf's head when Musharraf is no longer the problem. Far from being a den of conspiracy, the erstwhile Army House where he is still holed up has now a house of sorrow, another lesson in what happens when the pomp and glory of power have fled. Yet the PML-N keeps harping on Musharraf as if with him gone or better still impeached, the bright morning Pakistan has long awaited will have finally arrived.
It is a sign of the state the PML-N is in that without giving the matter a second thought it overreacts to the appointment of a political nonentity like my old friend Salmaan Taseer (never mind if he is a smart finance man) as Punjab governor, turning Salmaan at least for 48 hours into a looming presence on the political landscape. Beware the time when Musharraf is finally no more because the time for excuses then will have run out. Whom them to blame for the nation's shortcomings or the ineptitude of the political class?
The PML-N also runs the risk of being perceived as a single-issue party. It has boxed itself so much into a corner over the judges' issue that it has drastically curtailed its room for manoeuvre. We will restore the judges, the party and its leaders thunder at every opportunity, when it lies not in their power to do so. The key to the restoration of the judges is in Zardari's pocket and he has other games to play and other accounts to settle.
The PML-N consoles itself with the thought that its graph is rising while the PPP's is plunging. That may be so but of what use a rising graph when it is hard to predict what is going to happen in the next five months, let alone the next five years. How long will the present pantomime last? Suppose it doesn't, will we head into an election or another night of the…I need not spell out the word. Zardari may be playing a negative game of his own but the PML-N's interest lies in seeing to it that the present experiment, centred on Pakistan's first attempt at coalition-building, lasts.
But for that it will have to break free from the shackles of the judges' issue. Perhaps it would if it got some help from the legal fraternity or even My Lord Chaudhry. But the legal community has run out of ideas while My Lord Chaudhry no longer seems capable of thinking outside the box. He has proved himself a great man in many respects but the gift that marks a Mandela from an ordinary mortal seems not to lie in his grasp. Someone with true greatness in his soul would have said by now 'all right I am ready to step aside provided Musharraf goes too, Dogar also goes, and the Nov 2 judiciary is restored' thus sacrificing self for a higher cause.
Iqbal, awakener of our souls, where has thy memory fled, where all thy songs exhorting us to emulate the flight of the eagle? At stake is the country's future, calling for vision and some measure of greatness. What we are getting is a dance by dummies and men of straw.
Email: chakwal@comsats.net.pk
Ayaz Amir
A strange nation we are, expecting wisdom from morons, radicalism from born opportunists, and virtue from knaves whose principal claim to fame is daylight national robbery.
What do we take the national scene to be, the result of a Nepalese revolution or a Chinese long march? Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan after a deal brokered by the Yanks in whose prowess she had invested all her hopes. Nawaz Sharif's return to the country came about as a result of Saudi royal intervention. Hard to detect the glimmers of any Che Guevarism in either of these Roman triumphs.
Musharraf took off his uniform not because a million men and women, torches in hand, had besieged Army House but because the Yanks were twisting his elbow and support for him within the army command was waning. The lawyers' movement played a vital part in weakening him but lawyers take on too much upon themselves when they portray themselves as the heralds of the changes that have swept Pakistan.
All the leaders of the movement – from Aitzaz Ahsan to Munir A Malik to Ali Ahmed Kurd – are my friends. They are possessed of admirable qualities but modesty or humility, alas, is not the most conspicuous among them. They expect the world to change but themselves refuse to change, still stuck in the heady feelings generated by their movement last year. If the tide flows it also ebbs. Critical points come and pass. Their movement has lost its momentum and something more than Aitzaz's driving skills – his uncanny ability to arrive at every destination at least ten hours late – is needed to regain it.
The people made their views known on Feb 18 but only because they were given an opportunity to do so. If they had not been given that opportunity does anyone think that they would have taken to the streets and stormed the citadels of power? In which make-believe world do we live? Our capacity for being pushed around is virtually inexhaustible and our political class, far from honing the tools of political resistance, has arrived at the last stages of moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
If the Feb elections had been shelved, Pakistan would have dug a deeper hole for itself but the masses would not have stirred. A nation that could endure Ayub Khan for eleven years, that knight of darkness – Ziaul Haq – for another eleven, and a certified mediocre like Musharraf, a disaster in both war and peace, for eight and a half years, can put up with anything. Still the fact remains that whether the Yanks played around with the props on our political stage or the Saudi Royals had a hand in altering some of the background tapestry, elections were held, Musharraf and his pack of political jackals were roundly humiliated, and political parties reviled and abused, and kept out in the cold all these years, swept to a dramatic victory.
So the people were not remiss in expecting great things to happen. What they have received instead is another extended lesson in the workings of political bankruptcy, the political parties in whom the people had reposed their trust proving epic failures at political management. Instead of dealing with real issues and trying to figure out how to get the country out of the hole in which it is stuck they are chasing shadows, evening out old scores and charging at toothless dragons that have lost the power to spout any fire from their raging nostrils.
Zardari, to his credit, is being the man that he always was: interested in power and money. Courtesy of the deal struck with Musharraf (through the Yanks) he has just won himself the biggest reprieve in Pakistani history, all cases against him – and it was not easy counting them – having been wound up. The people of Pakistan may yet be awaiting their miracle but he has received his.
My Lord Dogar, presently adorning the highest chair in the Supreme Court, is the agent of this miracle. And the people of Pakistan, chumps as ever, expect Zardari to put Dogar in the doghouse while My Lord Iftikhar Chaudhry, symbol and hero of the lawyer-cum-judicial movement, sweeps into the Supreme Court. This won't happen in the real world as long as Zardari is around. So what he is doing is smiling all the time and spouting some of the worst clichés about institution-building that the people of Pakistan have had to put up with for a long time.
The people of Pakistan – ordinary people, that is, because some have had a ball – have had to put up with much all these years. But having to endure lectures on politics from Mr Zardari takes the prize. Those in the charmed circle of the PPP elect – that is, in Zardari's good graces and therefore enjoying office or importance – go about with trained smiles on their faces. Sherry, I said, was becoming a competent minister. She is also turning into a sophisticated version of the dreaded Mohammad Ali Durrani.
But imagine the plight of those not in this charmed circle. They have to take in all that they are subjected to without wincing or saying anything in return. Our political parties, all of them, produce no rebels. They turn out courtiers instinctively aware that discretion is the better part of valour.
So the nation is being fed a series of fibs as extended as the thousand and one tales of the Arabian Nights: all about constitutional packaging, etc. Zardari misses not a step when reciting this litany. Farooq Naek, the law minister, as he goes through the same paces looks a deeply unhappy man. Things are whirling out of control and the economy is sinking and the rupee taking a further dip every day but the political charade being played out in Islamabad goes on, each day bringing a fresh twist to it.
And what is that other great party of the people, the PML-N, doing? Heaping fresh imprecations on Musharraf's head when Musharraf is no longer the problem. Far from being a den of conspiracy, the erstwhile Army House where he is still holed up has now a house of sorrow, another lesson in what happens when the pomp and glory of power have fled. Yet the PML-N keeps harping on Musharraf as if with him gone or better still impeached, the bright morning Pakistan has long awaited will have finally arrived.
It is a sign of the state the PML-N is in that without giving the matter a second thought it overreacts to the appointment of a political nonentity like my old friend Salmaan Taseer (never mind if he is a smart finance man) as Punjab governor, turning Salmaan at least for 48 hours into a looming presence on the political landscape. Beware the time when Musharraf is finally no more because the time for excuses then will have run out. Whom them to blame for the nation's shortcomings or the ineptitude of the political class?
The PML-N also runs the risk of being perceived as a single-issue party. It has boxed itself so much into a corner over the judges' issue that it has drastically curtailed its room for manoeuvre. We will restore the judges, the party and its leaders thunder at every opportunity, when it lies not in their power to do so. The key to the restoration of the judges is in Zardari's pocket and he has other games to play and other accounts to settle.
The PML-N consoles itself with the thought that its graph is rising while the PPP's is plunging. That may be so but of what use a rising graph when it is hard to predict what is going to happen in the next five months, let alone the next five years. How long will the present pantomime last? Suppose it doesn't, will we head into an election or another night of the…I need not spell out the word. Zardari may be playing a negative game of his own but the PML-N's interest lies in seeing to it that the present experiment, centred on Pakistan's first attempt at coalition-building, lasts.
But for that it will have to break free from the shackles of the judges' issue. Perhaps it would if it got some help from the legal fraternity or even My Lord Chaudhry. But the legal community has run out of ideas while My Lord Chaudhry no longer seems capable of thinking outside the box. He has proved himself a great man in many respects but the gift that marks a Mandela from an ordinary mortal seems not to lie in his grasp. Someone with true greatness in his soul would have said by now 'all right I am ready to step aside provided Musharraf goes too, Dogar also goes, and the Nov 2 judiciary is restored' thus sacrificing self for a higher cause.
Iqbal, awakener of our souls, where has thy memory fled, where all thy songs exhorting us to emulate the flight of the eagle? At stake is the country's future, calling for vision and some measure of greatness. What we are getting is a dance by dummies and men of straw.
Email: chakwal@comsats.net.pk
Thursday, 28 August 2008
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.
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)