Bullseye on Pakistan

THE United States does its war-on-terror profile no favours by constantly repeating charges that Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omer continue to operate from within Pakistani territory, especially since the long years since the ouster of the Taleban have not seen Washington forward any credible evidence to back the claim. It is interesting to note that occupation forces’ fortunes in Afghanistan have been at a lower level than before each time this accusation has surfaced, the latest incident being no different. It is no secret that both the Afghan and Iraq chapters of the terror-war have been effectively lost. So much as holding the status quo at present means constant hemorrhaging of life and material, which does not speak very highly of the world’s mightiest military machine’s credentials when faced with rag-tag urban guerilla insurgencies. As things stand in Afghanistan, America is near abandoned by its own Nato allies, who refuse to commit more troops to take further flack from Washington’s failed war strategy.
Criticising Pakistan’s efforts at this juncture, that too without proof, is ill-advised. Washington should note that Islamabad has clearly done more than any other ally since 9/11, committing its own troops in operations inside its own borders, which has come with serious domestic political, social and economic spillovers. President Musharraf has his share of problems on the domestic political landscape. But those, too, owe in no small manner to his “unstinted support” to Washington’s post 9/11 policy. It is difficult to question critics’ assertion that a good reason for both Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omer slipping away was Washington’s over confidence as it quickly turned to Baghdad once Kabul fell. In doing so, its material constraints meant both endeavours were approached with half-hearted sincerity. And once the Afghanistan situation started worsening, America did not exercise prudence by bolstering its military presence there, instead resorting to the endless blame game that serves only to betray frustration on its part. Pakistan has already risked serious threat to its federation by indulging wholeheartedly in America’s game in the region. And as Afghan militias are in the process of bleeding yet another superpower that waged war on them, America should seek to strengthen Pakistan’s position instead of creating fissures and rifts. If they have proof of Al Qaeda and Taleban leadership operating in Pakistan, they should make haste in sharing ‘actionable intelligence’ with Pakistani authorities. Short of that, they should stop making accusations that serve only to splinter the already shaking coalition.
 

Kicking a bear

HAD the $100 barrel of oil happened 20 years ago and Russia’s present oil and gas been flowing to the world then as it is now, communism and the Soviet Union might not have collapsed. It is arguable that it was economic as much as moral and political decay that led to the disintegration of the old Soviet command economy and its empire in 1991. The Cold War ended because Moscow could no longer afford to fight it. The fact that politicians in the West are now talking about a new Cold War stems in part from the fact that now it can. The country that dropped to its financial knees with the collapse of the ruble in 1998 is currently awash with money which it is once more reinvesting in the so-called military industrial complex that sustained the old Soviet Union at the height of its power. Russians, who post-Gorbachev were once welcomed as new commercial partners and political allies by the United States and Europe, are again being viewed with suspicion. The metaphor of the “Russian bear” has returned with all the fearful resonances of brute power and untrustworthiness. From the West’s point of view, Russian revanchism is evidenced by high-handed bullying tactics over gas supplies to the Ukraine and Europe, Putin’s threat to resile from nuclear arms control agreements and now the warning on Thursday that a new arms race was beginning.
But the West’s point of view - particularly the view of the Republican Bush administration in Washington - has been remarkably blinkered. The key blind spot was American gloating at the Soviet collapse, characterized as the US victory in the Cold war. As Yeltsin threw open the Russian economy to market reform, Western business and banking stormed in, intent on sealing their victory by buying up the commanding heights of the Russian economy. Now that the Russians spoke capitalism, they would dance to Washington’s tune. In time it proved that this invasion of capital encountered the same resistance that met the soldiers of Napoleon and Hitler. The Russian economy was just too big to be overrun at a single charge and besides, while foreign carpetbaggers and Yeltsin’s cronies became wealthy, ordinary Russians saw few economic benefits. It is the resentment of defeat and at the attempted economic occupation by the West that is now driving Russia’s return toward superpower status. All the present complaints about breached contracts and high-handed behavior ignore the truth that when Russia was down and out, the West sought to profit from her humiliation. Militarily the US plan to site anti-missile missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic is rightly seen by Moscow as a threat to Russia and nothing to do with the danger of rockets launched at Europe from Iran or North Korea. The Bush administration’s pretence to the contrary is crass. It is Washington that has absurdly relaunched the arms race, at a time when Russia can afford to rejoin. If you are stupid enough to kick a bear, you can expect to see its claws.

—Arab News