It’s ten years since the symbols of American economic and military might were hit. The attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Virginia claimed nearly three thousand lives and impacted enormously on the world’s largest economy. It was arguably the most dramatic happening of the last half-a-century.
9/11 also reshaped US foreign policy. Counter-terrorism became the principal criterion for the definition of American allies and enemies. This also forced the US to redefine its relationship with Pakistan. Osama bin Laden, whom Washington regarded as the prime mover behind the 9/11 attacks, was believed to be operating in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. The Taliban were the creation of Pakistan and until then had enjoyed friendly relations with Islamabad. In fact, Pakistan was one of three countries which recognised the Taliban regime.
American policymakers knew well that without Pakistan’s support it would not be possible for their country to crush the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. That is why, immediately after the 9/11 strikes, the US confronted Pakistan with the stark choice of “either you are with us or against us”. It was a defining movement in Pakistan’s relations with the USA. Either they would help the US crush the Taliban and Al-Qaeda – for whom there was a lot of support in religious circles and the border areas and at least some measure of support in the top brass of the military itself – or be dubbed its opponents. There was not to be a middle course. Pakistan decided, whether rightly or wrongly is debatable, to side with the Americans.
As acknowledgement of Pakistan’s vital role, President George Bush announced a $3 billion aid package for Pakistan over five years, in addition to debt relief of $1.5 billion, and lifted sanctions clamped on the country in the wake of its nuclear explosions and the coup staged by Gen Musharraf. For the next seven years the US provided around $12 billion aid to Pakistan, the bulk of which was security related. The grant of the status of a major non-Nato ally was also an acknowledgement of Pakistan’s contribution to the anti-terrorism efforts.
The US administration put its full weight behind Pervez Musharraf’s military regime and saw to it that the general remained in the saddle until, of course, the White House was convinced that it could safely bet on the new horses in Pakistan.
For Pakistan the consequences of being the epicentre of the war on terror have been disastrous – physically, psychologically and economically.
Citing the National Crisis Management Cell, The Economic Survey of Pakistan (2009-10), reports that between 2002 and April 2010, a total number of 8,141 incidents of terrorism took place in the country in which 8,875 people perished and another 20,675 were left injured.
The latest issue of the Survey puts the cumulative economic cost of the war for Pakistan during the last decade at $67.93 billion. The cost includes the destruction of physical infrastructure, compensation paid to the victims of acts of terrorism, the rise in security-related expenditure at the expense of developmental spending, the fall in economic output, revenue, investment and exports, the loss of jobs and shutdown of businesses and the increased cost of doing business. These figures are a few months old. Hence, the total human and economic loss must be even higher.
On the psychological plane, the cost is incomparably devastating. Apart from the countless women rendered widows and children left orphans, there is an acute sense of insecurity, with the war being waged in mosques and shrines, markets and streets, campuses and offices, apart from our mountains and plains.
Who bears the responsibility for this state of affairs? Al-Qaeda, which masterminded 9/11? The Americans, against whose policies Al-Qaeda reacted and who have been relentlessly pursuing their antagonists on Pakistani soil? The ruling establishment of Pakistan, which first played the role of fronstline state against communism in the 1980s and have been playing the same role against the militants for last ten years? The clergy which has always maintained that Pakistan was meant to be a citadel of Islam and that it’s the responsibility of the government and people of Pakistan to be at the beck and call of Muslim resistance movements wherever they spring up? The Taliban, who have turned this country into inferno in the name of Islamisation of society, and their mentors and apologists? The present rotten, unjust socio-political system, which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, the mighty mightier and the weak weaker? Or society itself, which is still in a state of denial and is not prepared to own the war on terror despite facing its enormous repercussions?
While people will answer the question differently and point the finger at one element or another, a few points need to be taken into account. One, whatever the reason, it’s Pakistan which is the epicentre of terrorism. Was it mere coincidence that, of all the places in the world, Osama bin Laden found refuge in this country for a good many years? Two, the militaristic view of Islam is still exceedingly popular in our part of the world and we labour under the delusion that the forces of kufr want to crush us for being the only Muslim nuclear power. Is it surprising then that the jihadis trained on our soil have made their way into India, China, Chechnya and elsewhere, and in turn we have received militants from different parts of the world? The jihadis’ infiltration into China is the main reason that Beijing no longer supports Pakistan on the Kashmir issue.
Three, blaming America for the instability and violence in Pakistan will not solve the problem. Nor should we expect Washington to change its strategy for the sake of Pakistan. No country will do that. The US counter-terrorism policy is dictated by what it perceives to be its national interest. The basic responsibility for defeating the militants remains our own, because it is our society which is bearing the brunt of their activities.
Finally, militancy needs to be fought on both the ideological and socio-economic fronts. There has to be a real fight against poverty and injustices, so that people do not become tools in the hands of terrorist outfits out of desperation and frustration. That said, it’s important to highlight the fact that there is no necessary connection between terrorism and poverty. People poorer than us inhabit this planet without taking to militancy. Hence, the diabolical ideology that underlies terrorism needs to be condemned with full force.
No comments:
Post a Comment