Enhanced fears of war

THE Nato has moved its troops closer to the Pakistan border but says it has no intention to invade Pakistan. Their force pounded targets inside Pakistan with artillery fire and helicopters on Wednesday but they say it was done with the knowledge and acquiescence of Pakistani authorities. Its planes and artillery attacked a Pakistani military post in Mohmand Agency last month killing 11 soldiers and injuring many more, but says it was not aware of the existence of this post as it was not on its database. The Pakistani authorities have responded to the Nato with conflicting assertions. They concede truth in reports of Nato “build-up” along the border but say it is “routine movement”. They concede sharing information with the Nato but reject the conglomerates’ assertion that Mohmand post was not on its database. If this is not thick confusion that abounds in the co-operative relationship between Nato and Pakistan in their joint effort against the Taliban militants, then what is it? May be both sides feel justified in nurturing their self-centred perceptions in line with their limited battlefield-oriented frameworks. But the hard fact is that their growing postural mismatch is playing havoc with the public morale in Pakistan. One wonders if it has helped the Afghans in any way or the Nato countries who send their sons to die in the wilderness of Afghanistan in the name of defending democracy championed by President Hamid Karzai and his cabal of self-seekers, either. History tells us that over time war leads the generals. That may be happening in the borderlands of Afghanistan and Pakistan, as clarity of purpose is being lost to confused and often contradictory statements about the war that is said to be the common goal of both sides. After all these years and decades of heavily paying for living in the neighbourhood of a ‘great game’ battlefield, one may say let Kabul stew in its own juice. Why suffer so much of collateral damage in a war now being essentially being fought to prop up the Vichy regime of Hamid Karzai? As the Soviets invaded Afghanistan Pakistan foolishly offered to be the ‘fifth horse-rider’ of the US-headed military alliance.
While the alliance won Pakistan lost, as its net earning from the decade-long war was the three million refugees. When the United States turned to Afghanistan the second time - to hunt down the perpetrators of 9/11 tragedy - Pakistan being run again by another military dispensation volunteered to be part of the great hunt. It sent in some hundred thousand troops in a non-winnable conflict with its people in its own territory. THE RESULT SO FAR: Over a thousand troops lost; large displacements of ordinary poor people; deadly suicide-bombings all over the country; a few billion dollars that finally reached here; political support for democracy tainted with a sacked judiciary and NRO and resultant political instability that tends to stunt economic growth. Later this month, Prime Minister Gilani would be ideally placed to convey to President Bush Pakistan’s narrative, and, hopefully, will not be once again the target of accusations of being less than equal in the war on terror. It is good that Pakistan has already rubbished Karzai’s allegations, but the prime minister may seek Bush administration’s firm commitment not to get swayed by the Kabul mayor’s loud talk and that its generals and spokesmen fight shy of indulging in pin-pricking Pakistan so frequently. It is in the larger interest of the US-led coalition that it should comprehend the Afghan imbroglio in its totality - it is not merely a Taliban-specific problem, it stems from a variety of causes bred by clashing forces of ethnicity, tribalism, and narcotics. Also Afghans are deeply religious people they are natural supporters of the Taliban. Before the US-led coalition generalship moves further in repositioning its forces closer to Pakistan border it should be informed of the deleterious consequences of such a move. For one thing, very clearly to be understood, is that the people of Pakistan would see it with suspicion.

Call of reason from Madrid

SAUDI King Abdullah continues to demolish all stereotypes and misconceptions about the kingdom. His leadership since he took charge of the world’s largest oil producing country and the leader of the Arab-Islamic world has been one of extraordinary vision, pragmatism, reason and reconciliation. But what really would be remembered as the legacy of this sage king is his keenness to reach out to the rest of the world. The Saudi monarch has stepped forward to lead the Muslims’ dialogue with the world at a time when the militant extremism and the US war on terror have divided the world into Us and Them and the Islam-West rift is at its widest. He has made reaching out to other faiths a hallmark of his rule since ascending the throne in August 2005. He met Pope Benedict XVI in November last year, the first ever meeting between a Pope and a reigning Saudi king. Last month, he hosted an extraordinary meeting of 600 religious scholars and intellectuals in Makkah, in the vicinity of the Grand Mosque to brainstorm on ways of building bridges with other faiths, especially Christianity and Judaism.
The three-day interfaith conference in Madrid, hosted by Abdullah and attended by representatives of three Abrahamic faiths and other religions including King and Prime Minister of Spain, takes the reconciliation and dialogue initiative to its next level. And without doubt, this is by far the most ambitious attempt to take Islam’s original message of peace, reconciliation and forgiveness to the world. This is the first effort of this nature coming as it does from the most powerful and respected figure in the Muslim world. A great deal is routinely said and written about bridging the West-Muslim world gulf on either side of the divide. But seldom are such arguments backed by genuine conviction and honesty of intentions. Which is again why Abdullah’s appeal, delivered with a rare passion, seems to have touched a chord in the West. He exhorted followers of the world’s leading faiths to turn away from extremism and embrace a spirit of reconciliation, saying that history’s great conflicts were not caused by religion but by its misinterpretation. “We can defeat hatred with love, intolerance with tolerance and make all of humanity enjoy the benefits of mutual respect,” he argued. What a pleasant surprise it must be for the West coming from the leader of a country that is often blamed for extremism and for just about every problem in our world. Maybe it’s time for the West to wake up and see the real face of Islam.

—Khaleej Times