Astronomy and Theology of the Eid Moon
Shakil Akhtar Rai Los Angeles, CA
Once again we had multiple Eid celebrations, on two different days, in the same country, even in the same city. Multiplicity of Eid adds to the flexibility of modern-day tight schedule, and also gives a touch of democratic freedom of choice, and free market economy.
Therefore, personally I see nothing wrong with having two or three Eids in the same week, in the same neighborhood. At this time when 'freedom is on the march' as part of the neocon agenda in the Muslim world, isn't it encouraging seeing the American Muslims enjoy double gulp Eid celebrations; each masjid deciding on its own, and changing its decision at will, as to when the Eid will be.
Is this our version of the freedom of choice and democracy? So many Muslim students, workers, business people, professionals, and travelers would have missed the Eid prayer if it were on the same day, and more or less at the same time. Double gulp Eid enabled many more to join the celebration and enjoy the blessings. Despite this bright side of multiple Eids many a good Muslim was sour to see the unity of the Ummah damaged, and some wondered why on earth can't we see the moon the same day which is there on the horizon or it's not.
How is it possible that one group of the Muslims was able to see the moon on the horizon while others could not. And even those who had supposedly seen it later decided that actually they had not seen it. Or could it be that the moon deviated from its path and decided to delay or hasten its appearance on the horizon? Actually, Eid has two aspects - one astronomical, the other theological. The problem is I am not competent to venture my opinion on any one of them. (It's therefore better to leave the issue as it is and continue to enjoy multiple Eids.) There are, however, determined minds and disturbed souls who want to settle this question, right now.
They say appearance or absence of the moon on a particular day, on the horizon of a particular part of the globe is a question to be answered by astronomy. When, how, and where to offer Eid prayer is a theological question for which we turn to the ulema. Astronomy deals with the movement of heavenly bodies, which, as Muslims we believe have to follow a path determined by their Creator and Sustainer till the doomsday. Human endeavor through the centuries has been to find out the course and chemistry of the stars and planets. The science of astronomy evolved out of this human quest, and today has gone a very long way in demonstrating its knowledge of the universe.
Astronomy is thus an exact, verifiable, and demonstrable science. If an astronomer says the moon will appear on this part of the earth on this day he can demonstrate his claim by verifiable information. Unless we have equally verifiable and demonstrable arguments to show that it will be otherwise we should accept the verdict of the astronomer. Theology, like art and social sciences, is to a great extent inexact, non-demonstrable, and non-verifiable branch of human knowledge.
Religion and theology by their nature demand human belief in the unseen, deal with the realm beyond logic, and show us a path beyond this world to the hereafter. Viewed in this perspective the process of Eid has to be divided into two parts -- theological, and astronomical. When the two get mixed up or start intruding upon each other the trouble begins. When theology intruded upon astronomy Galileo was forced to retract and accept that the earth was indeed flat, it did not rotate, and was the center of the universe. When astronomy intruded upon theology the astronauts had the cheek to exult that they saw no god while circling around the globe in the upper space.
The first incident happened in deeply religious Rome, and the second in the godless Soviet Union. There is every reason to believe that the Muslim Ummah is lot more enlightened than the blinkered theologians of Rome, and the arrogant atheists of the Soviet Union. The wisdom (hikmah) bestowed upon the collective consciousness of the believers should enable the Muslims to draw a line between astronomy and theology.
Or we may continue to live with the fuss and confusion, making a mockery of an important religious occasion. Like all other branches of human knowledge theology and astronomy can supplement and complement each other provided they recognize their own limitations. It's not for theology to determine the chemistry, and the course of the planets, as it's not for astronomy to decided how to fast in the month of Ramadan and how and where to perform Hajj or offer Eid prayers.
By the way the neocon agenda that the current Administration is so keen to implement aims at conquering the lands, oils, minds, and hearts of the Muslims so as to bring them the fruits of peace and democracy, and rid them of terror and tyranny that has plagued them so long. If the consent of the recipients of theses blessings is not sought it's a matter to be discussed later. For the time being I wish to submit to the makers of this altruistic foreign policy that they may consider adding moon sighting for the Muslim people to their public relations measures in the Muslim lands.
The Administration in DC may like to open regional offices of NASA in the Middle East and beyond, to sight the elusive Eid moon for the Muslims, as they cannot see it for themselves. This may or may not bring the much-desired unity among the Ummah on the Eid day; it would, nevertheless, serve as an ample proof of the good intentions of the Administration towards collective well-being of the Muslim peoples. - drshakilrai@hotmail.com
Monday, September 20, 2010
US-India Nuclear Deal: More Divergence than Convergence of Interests
US-India Nuclear Deal: More Divergence than Convergence of Interests
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
The US-India nuclear deal signed between the two countries on March 02 during President Bush’s visit to South Asia has far reaching implications for Asia and bilateral relations between the two signatories. There is limited and short-term convergence of economic and military interests but in the long-term the deal is marked more by divergence of perception and interests than convergence.
The deal represents a major policy shift on the part of the US, and vindicates the long-held Indian position that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is indeed discriminatory in nature and lacks moral justification. The US has, thus, climbed down on the NPT ladder for future strategic gains as perceived by the right wing hawks in Washington.
The USA has championed nuclear non-proliferation in the last three-and-a-half decades. Now it has reversed its policy and effectively declared that NPT is indeed discriminatory and immoral. The deal has left the legal foundations of NPT shaken, and moral pretensions blown off. The US has set a dangerous precedent for others to follow. It gives other nuclear powers an excuse to sign similar deals. One wonders what would be the American response if some years down the road China or Russia signs a similar arrangement with Iran or Pakistan?
India’s real gain is not access to American nuclear technology; their achievement is moral victory on NPT, virtual acceptance as a nuclear power, and expectation that the new partnership would lead to India’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
The Administration in its bid to sell the deal to the Congress is saying that by getting access to 14 of 22 nuclear plants the US has achieved something big in its quest for nuclear non-proliferation. The fact is India retains the right to decide which plants to declare civilian and hence open to international monitoring and which ones to keep away from any inspection for military reasons.
The architects of the deal visualize China and Islamic radicalism as the most serious security threat to the US and expect India to do the their bidding in containing China, and fighting Muslim extremism. They hope the supply of technology for civilian nuclear power plants would dissuade India from pursuing the gas pipeline from Iran to meet its rapidly increasing energy requirements. This would help strengthen the anti-Iran coalition and intensify pressure on Tehran to abandon its uranium enrichment program. According to David Frum the deal would also strengthen India's nuclear-weapons capability, which, will be a step toward punishing the world's two worst nuclear proliferators, China and Pakistan.
The assumption behind this scenario is that Indians would be so grateful to the United States for giving her access to civilian nuclear technology, and conventional weapon systems that they would take-on all the neighbors on behalf of America.
This is Cold War mentality. There is unwarranted obsession with the China threat, and even more unrealistic assumption that India would choose confrontation and not coexistence with neighboring China. The two Asian powers have different areas of interest in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. Their territorial disputes are well managed and are not likely to boil over.
History and geography of the two mature civilizations have taught them better lessons in coexistence than confrontation. The geography dominated by the Himalayas has effectively separated the two and yet provided enough cultural osmosis to learn from each other. Those who do not have the benefit of long history are at a disadvantage in comprehending the range of foresight anchored in the annals of history. If at sometime in distant future the two powers have a conflict of economic or strategic interests in say Central Asia they would take decisions in their own interest and not in the interest of a distant friend or foe. India and China would opt for peace or conflict for their own reasons, not for others pleasure.
The deal is not likely to diminish India’s thirst for oil. At present nuclear power constitutes only three per cent of electricity produced in India. According to experts even with 30 new nuclear plants that India plans to build in the next two decades nuclear power would be only five per cent of its electricity production and barely two per cent of its total energy requirement. Under the circumstances gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan is an option India can delay but not abandon.
India has sided with the US in the IAEA meetings on the question of Iran’s nuclear program. But it is obvious that this coincidence of interests would go only a short distance. The deal has vindicated the Indian position on NPT and weakened the American stance. How then is India expected to pressurize Iran to not only abide by a discriminatory regime of non-proliferation, but also to abandon what she is allowed to pursue under the NPT, namely, the pursuit of a peaceful nuclear program.
The US-India nuclear deal and the subsequent visit of President Bush to Islamabad have demonstrated that in the new era Pakistan is not visualized as a strategic partner of the US. In the eyes of the US policy makers Pakistan because of her nuclear past, and relationship with militant Islamists, is more of a problem to be watched than a business partner to be trusted. This is a shortsighted view and may prove more problematic than realized at present.
The deal shows lack of understanding of Pakistan’s security interests, its importance in the region, and its future role in maintaining peace and stability. The situation leaves Pakistan little choice but to pursue its nuclear and missile program more vigorously to make up for the disadvantage it has in conventional forces against India. Cold-shouldering Pakistan so soon in the war on terrorism will only strengthen anti-American forces not only in the political field but also within the establishment. This likely scenario is not helpful to the US interests.
- drshakilakhtar@yahoo.com
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
The US-India nuclear deal signed between the two countries on March 02 during President Bush’s visit to South Asia has far reaching implications for Asia and bilateral relations between the two signatories. There is limited and short-term convergence of economic and military interests but in the long-term the deal is marked more by divergence of perception and interests than convergence.
The deal represents a major policy shift on the part of the US, and vindicates the long-held Indian position that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is indeed discriminatory in nature and lacks moral justification. The US has, thus, climbed down on the NPT ladder for future strategic gains as perceived by the right wing hawks in Washington.
The USA has championed nuclear non-proliferation in the last three-and-a-half decades. Now it has reversed its policy and effectively declared that NPT is indeed discriminatory and immoral. The deal has left the legal foundations of NPT shaken, and moral pretensions blown off. The US has set a dangerous precedent for others to follow. It gives other nuclear powers an excuse to sign similar deals. One wonders what would be the American response if some years down the road China or Russia signs a similar arrangement with Iran or Pakistan?
India’s real gain is not access to American nuclear technology; their achievement is moral victory on NPT, virtual acceptance as a nuclear power, and expectation that the new partnership would lead to India’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
The Administration in its bid to sell the deal to the Congress is saying that by getting access to 14 of 22 nuclear plants the US has achieved something big in its quest for nuclear non-proliferation. The fact is India retains the right to decide which plants to declare civilian and hence open to international monitoring and which ones to keep away from any inspection for military reasons.
The architects of the deal visualize China and Islamic radicalism as the most serious security threat to the US and expect India to do the their bidding in containing China, and fighting Muslim extremism. They hope the supply of technology for civilian nuclear power plants would dissuade India from pursuing the gas pipeline from Iran to meet its rapidly increasing energy requirements. This would help strengthen the anti-Iran coalition and intensify pressure on Tehran to abandon its uranium enrichment program. According to David Frum the deal would also strengthen India's nuclear-weapons capability, which, will be a step toward punishing the world's two worst nuclear proliferators, China and Pakistan.
The assumption behind this scenario is that Indians would be so grateful to the United States for giving her access to civilian nuclear technology, and conventional weapon systems that they would take-on all the neighbors on behalf of America.
This is Cold War mentality. There is unwarranted obsession with the China threat, and even more unrealistic assumption that India would choose confrontation and not coexistence with neighboring China. The two Asian powers have different areas of interest in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. Their territorial disputes are well managed and are not likely to boil over.
History and geography of the two mature civilizations have taught them better lessons in coexistence than confrontation. The geography dominated by the Himalayas has effectively separated the two and yet provided enough cultural osmosis to learn from each other. Those who do not have the benefit of long history are at a disadvantage in comprehending the range of foresight anchored in the annals of history. If at sometime in distant future the two powers have a conflict of economic or strategic interests in say Central Asia they would take decisions in their own interest and not in the interest of a distant friend or foe. India and China would opt for peace or conflict for their own reasons, not for others pleasure.
The deal is not likely to diminish India’s thirst for oil. At present nuclear power constitutes only three per cent of electricity produced in India. According to experts even with 30 new nuclear plants that India plans to build in the next two decades nuclear power would be only five per cent of its electricity production and barely two per cent of its total energy requirement. Under the circumstances gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan is an option India can delay but not abandon.
India has sided with the US in the IAEA meetings on the question of Iran’s nuclear program. But it is obvious that this coincidence of interests would go only a short distance. The deal has vindicated the Indian position on NPT and weakened the American stance. How then is India expected to pressurize Iran to not only abide by a discriminatory regime of non-proliferation, but also to abandon what she is allowed to pursue under the NPT, namely, the pursuit of a peaceful nuclear program.
The US-India nuclear deal and the subsequent visit of President Bush to Islamabad have demonstrated that in the new era Pakistan is not visualized as a strategic partner of the US. In the eyes of the US policy makers Pakistan because of her nuclear past, and relationship with militant Islamists, is more of a problem to be watched than a business partner to be trusted. This is a shortsighted view and may prove more problematic than realized at present.
The deal shows lack of understanding of Pakistan’s security interests, its importance in the region, and its future role in maintaining peace and stability. The situation leaves Pakistan little choice but to pursue its nuclear and missile program more vigorously to make up for the disadvantage it has in conventional forces against India. Cold-shouldering Pakistan so soon in the war on terrorism will only strengthen anti-American forces not only in the political field but also within the establishment. This likely scenario is not helpful to the US interests.
- drshakilakhtar@yahoo.com
Irrationality of War and Diplomacy
Irrationality of War and Diplomacy
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
Modernity takes great pride in being a rational enterprise of the West. In terms of decision making and organizational structures the armed forces and foreign relations organizations are touted as the most rational setups, where ideology, altruism, and emotions have little room. The twin organizations are supposed to be motivated by nothing but national interests. And yet, America's war in Iraq and now its proxy war in Lebanon defy any rational explanation.
All 'rational' justifications for the Iraq war, like the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam's links to Al-Qaeda etc., proffered by the administration and uncritically accepted by the mass media have crumbled one by one. The war in Iraq has served no national interest of the United States; neither strategic nor diplomatic. In fact, on both these counts the American fortunes have suffered due to its open-ended military commitment without a clear positive objective. Iraq is now a quagmire, with no exit strategy at hand; billions of tax payer's dollars are being spent not to pursue any positive American interests but just to save Iraq from breaking up, sinking into a declared civil war, turning into a staging ground for terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, and becoming a battle ground for proxy wars among regional players like Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Even on these negative objectives the United States seems to be losing inch by inch on daily basis. Prospects of a full blown civil war are greater today than a year ago, the danger of breakup of Iraq on ethnic/sectarian lines is looming not receding, terrorists and insurgents are gaining ground in the form of death squads, and among the regional powers Iran has a strong foothold in Iraq, and Israel has developed close relations with Kurdish leadership, to the chagrin of another ally, Turkey. Did this country go to war to promote Iranian and Israeli interests or to gain something for itself?
Instead of learning anything from mistakes in Iraq, the United States has now opened the doors of hell for another war in another Arab country, from where Israel, not the United States, have been facing some military challenge from a non-state entity called Hizbollah. Israel has its own rationale for wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, and the killings of hundreds of children, women, and the sick in homes, air raid shelters, buses, hospitals and ambulances. The question is what American interests are being served by providing military and diplomatic support to Israel in this war?
Israel's war in Lebanon is supposed be a part of America's war on terrorism, it's aimed at putting an end to Syrian abetment in terrorism, it's a war to stem Iranian radicalism through Shia terrorist organizations like Hizbollah, it's the exercise of Israel's right to defend itself, and it's a war to strengthen democratic government in Beirut against the evil influence of a terrorist organization. All of them may be legitimate foreign policy objectives, but can they be achieved by the policy options undertaken by the administration recently? There is reason to doubt.
How Israel's relentless bombardment of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and the killings of thousands of hapless civilians with American made bombs and diplomatic support is going to create any goodwill for America? Or this abetment in carnage will further erode American credibility, and diminish its ability to influence events through diplomacy? The probability is the war is doing more harm to America than good, at least in the short run.
The US State Department lists Hizbollah as a terrorist organization but America has taken no military action against it because the organization does not threaten the United States. Its activities are Israel-specific and remain confined to Lebanon. To that extent Israel's war on Lebanon cannot be treated as a part of America's war on terror, as, say, Sri Lanka's war against Tamil Tigers is not America's war on terrorism, though LTTE is on the US State Department's list of terrorist organizations.
Also terrorism is politically motivated violence targeting civilians. Hizbollah attacked an Israeli military post, killed eight soldiers and abducted two. This act can be condemned for various reasons but cannot be termed as an act of terrorism even under the FBI definition, because the target was military and not civilian. This is not to exonerate Hizbollah for its other acts of violence aimed at Israeli civilians, which earned it the designation of a terrorist organization.
A curious irrationality is at work in this context on another level in US diplomacy. The US supports the government of Lebanon of which Hizbollah is an integral component—they hold two cabinet posts. Also the Secretary of State sees nothing wrong in meeting Nabi Beri, the Speaker of Lebanese parliament who is leader of Amal militia, and an ally of Hizbollah. The US actions have weakened the Lebanese government by under-cutting its credibility and probably strengthened Hizbollah.
This war is supposed to be indirectly aimed at Syria and Iran, the financier-patrons of Hizbollah. The US-Israel axis wants to use the current crisis to take the Syrian-Iranian finger out of the Lebanon pie and make that country dependent on the US and compliant with Israeli demands. This may be a legitimate objective of foreign policy in that region, but how can you hope to achieve it when you are not willing to talk to anyone of them. The surrender-first approach has not borne fruit before nor is it likely to work this time. It may well turn out to be counter-productive. If the US puts its own interests ahead of the interests of its Middle Eastern ally, and follows a rational approach and not an ideological one it would engage these countries and defang them.
Hizbollah is not a state, or an army. Its members do not wear special uniform, they do not have garrisons, cantonments, staff colleges or other attributes of a professional army. Deploying the might of a state and its professional military with most advanced and lethal weaponry against an amorphous entity like Hizbollah is like chasing a housefly with an assault rifle. The chances are that such a disproportionate use of force may still let the fly survive but damage much else in the process. Israel in its shock-n-awe approach has quickly destroyed Lebanon's civil infrastructure and has its hands soaked in the blood of innocent civilians and Hizbollah remains intact and kicking, lobbing missile into Israeli cities. The approach so far does not seem to have worked.
Now, the option is to put an international, preferably NATO force in southern Lebanon to protect Israel from Hizbollah attacks, and eventually to disarm it. What Israel has not been able to achieve in more than two decades of military action is now expected to be achieved by an international force. What country on earth would send in its troops to fight Hizbollah, and disarm it not for national interest of its own but that of Israel? Only the United States has the magnanimity to protect Israel at the expense of its own interests but then the US is not willing to be part that international force.
Give national self-interest and rationality a chance on the diplomatic and security front, and let ideology and 'The Lobby' take a back seat.
- drshakilakhtar@yahoo.com
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
Modernity takes great pride in being a rational enterprise of the West. In terms of decision making and organizational structures the armed forces and foreign relations organizations are touted as the most rational setups, where ideology, altruism, and emotions have little room. The twin organizations are supposed to be motivated by nothing but national interests. And yet, America's war in Iraq and now its proxy war in Lebanon defy any rational explanation.
All 'rational' justifications for the Iraq war, like the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam's links to Al-Qaeda etc., proffered by the administration and uncritically accepted by the mass media have crumbled one by one. The war in Iraq has served no national interest of the United States; neither strategic nor diplomatic. In fact, on both these counts the American fortunes have suffered due to its open-ended military commitment without a clear positive objective. Iraq is now a quagmire, with no exit strategy at hand; billions of tax payer's dollars are being spent not to pursue any positive American interests but just to save Iraq from breaking up, sinking into a declared civil war, turning into a staging ground for terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, and becoming a battle ground for proxy wars among regional players like Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Even on these negative objectives the United States seems to be losing inch by inch on daily basis. Prospects of a full blown civil war are greater today than a year ago, the danger of breakup of Iraq on ethnic/sectarian lines is looming not receding, terrorists and insurgents are gaining ground in the form of death squads, and among the regional powers Iran has a strong foothold in Iraq, and Israel has developed close relations with Kurdish leadership, to the chagrin of another ally, Turkey. Did this country go to war to promote Iranian and Israeli interests or to gain something for itself?
Instead of learning anything from mistakes in Iraq, the United States has now opened the doors of hell for another war in another Arab country, from where Israel, not the United States, have been facing some military challenge from a non-state entity called Hizbollah. Israel has its own rationale for wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, and the killings of hundreds of children, women, and the sick in homes, air raid shelters, buses, hospitals and ambulances. The question is what American interests are being served by providing military and diplomatic support to Israel in this war?
Israel's war in Lebanon is supposed be a part of America's war on terrorism, it's aimed at putting an end to Syrian abetment in terrorism, it's a war to stem Iranian radicalism through Shia terrorist organizations like Hizbollah, it's the exercise of Israel's right to defend itself, and it's a war to strengthen democratic government in Beirut against the evil influence of a terrorist organization. All of them may be legitimate foreign policy objectives, but can they be achieved by the policy options undertaken by the administration recently? There is reason to doubt.
How Israel's relentless bombardment of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and the killings of thousands of hapless civilians with American made bombs and diplomatic support is going to create any goodwill for America? Or this abetment in carnage will further erode American credibility, and diminish its ability to influence events through diplomacy? The probability is the war is doing more harm to America than good, at least in the short run.
The US State Department lists Hizbollah as a terrorist organization but America has taken no military action against it because the organization does not threaten the United States. Its activities are Israel-specific and remain confined to Lebanon. To that extent Israel's war on Lebanon cannot be treated as a part of America's war on terror, as, say, Sri Lanka's war against Tamil Tigers is not America's war on terrorism, though LTTE is on the US State Department's list of terrorist organizations.
Also terrorism is politically motivated violence targeting civilians. Hizbollah attacked an Israeli military post, killed eight soldiers and abducted two. This act can be condemned for various reasons but cannot be termed as an act of terrorism even under the FBI definition, because the target was military and not civilian. This is not to exonerate Hizbollah for its other acts of violence aimed at Israeli civilians, which earned it the designation of a terrorist organization.
A curious irrationality is at work in this context on another level in US diplomacy. The US supports the government of Lebanon of which Hizbollah is an integral component—they hold two cabinet posts. Also the Secretary of State sees nothing wrong in meeting Nabi Beri, the Speaker of Lebanese parliament who is leader of Amal militia, and an ally of Hizbollah. The US actions have weakened the Lebanese government by under-cutting its credibility and probably strengthened Hizbollah.
This war is supposed to be indirectly aimed at Syria and Iran, the financier-patrons of Hizbollah. The US-Israel axis wants to use the current crisis to take the Syrian-Iranian finger out of the Lebanon pie and make that country dependent on the US and compliant with Israeli demands. This may be a legitimate objective of foreign policy in that region, but how can you hope to achieve it when you are not willing to talk to anyone of them. The surrender-first approach has not borne fruit before nor is it likely to work this time. It may well turn out to be counter-productive. If the US puts its own interests ahead of the interests of its Middle Eastern ally, and follows a rational approach and not an ideological one it would engage these countries and defang them.
Hizbollah is not a state, or an army. Its members do not wear special uniform, they do not have garrisons, cantonments, staff colleges or other attributes of a professional army. Deploying the might of a state and its professional military with most advanced and lethal weaponry against an amorphous entity like Hizbollah is like chasing a housefly with an assault rifle. The chances are that such a disproportionate use of force may still let the fly survive but damage much else in the process. Israel in its shock-n-awe approach has quickly destroyed Lebanon's civil infrastructure and has its hands soaked in the blood of innocent civilians and Hizbollah remains intact and kicking, lobbing missile into Israeli cities. The approach so far does not seem to have worked.
Now, the option is to put an international, preferably NATO force in southern Lebanon to protect Israel from Hizbollah attacks, and eventually to disarm it. What Israel has not been able to achieve in more than two decades of military action is now expected to be achieved by an international force. What country on earth would send in its troops to fight Hizbollah, and disarm it not for national interest of its own but that of Israel? Only the United States has the magnanimity to protect Israel at the expense of its own interests but then the US is not willing to be part that international force.
Give national self-interest and rationality a chance on the diplomatic and security front, and let ideology and 'The Lobby' take a back seat.
- drshakilakhtar@yahoo.com
Benazir-Musharraf Deal, Or No Deal?
Benazir-Musharraf Deal, Or No Deal?
By Shakil Bhatti
Los Angeles, CA
Benazir will do a great disservice to the people of Pakistan if she extends her hand to save a sinking military dictator. She may be able to get into power, and the usurper kept afloat for some more time, but this arrangement would ensure that the military retains its role as the ultimate powerbroker in Pakistani politics. It'll be only a few more years when they show her the door once again.
The generals are in a tight spot, and are looking for an escape route so as to blame the political leadership once again for the mess they are going to leave behind.
Benazir has the political support of the masses that only needs to be turned into street power through her charisma, to force an adventurer to face the wrath of the people and full implementation of the Constitution. If Benazir is thinking beyond one more stint in power, and if she wants to carve a niche for herself in history then instead of cutting deals behind closed doors she should fight for justice and rule of law. If justice is not done, and Pakistani leadership refuses to learn any lesson from history then rest assure history is going to repeat itself.
The way things are going the generals will soon be surrendering either to the rising menace of jihadist militancy or to the will of the people expressed through a genuine political process. A secret deal between Benazir and the Army will neither save Benazir nor the Army in the long run. The deal will make Benazir an accomplice in the crimes of the military dictatorship. This will create a situation ripe for exploitation by the jihadists who have sufficient motivation, organizational network, and the will to kill and get killed.
Pakistan is heading towards a Taliban style catastrophe, which can only be averted if the will of the people is brought into full play through a genuine political process; failing which, deal or no deal, the writing on the wall is clear.
By Shakil Bhatti
Los Angeles, CA
Benazir will do a great disservice to the people of Pakistan if she extends her hand to save a sinking military dictator. She may be able to get into power, and the usurper kept afloat for some more time, but this arrangement would ensure that the military retains its role as the ultimate powerbroker in Pakistani politics. It'll be only a few more years when they show her the door once again.
The generals are in a tight spot, and are looking for an escape route so as to blame the political leadership once again for the mess they are going to leave behind.
Benazir has the political support of the masses that only needs to be turned into street power through her charisma, to force an adventurer to face the wrath of the people and full implementation of the Constitution. If Benazir is thinking beyond one more stint in power, and if she wants to carve a niche for herself in history then instead of cutting deals behind closed doors she should fight for justice and rule of law. If justice is not done, and Pakistani leadership refuses to learn any lesson from history then rest assure history is going to repeat itself.
The way things are going the generals will soon be surrendering either to the rising menace of jihadist militancy or to the will of the people expressed through a genuine political process. A secret deal between Benazir and the Army will neither save Benazir nor the Army in the long run. The deal will make Benazir an accomplice in the crimes of the military dictatorship. This will create a situation ripe for exploitation by the jihadists who have sufficient motivation, organizational network, and the will to kill and get killed.
Pakistan is heading towards a Taliban style catastrophe, which can only be averted if the will of the people is brought into full play through a genuine political process; failing which, deal or no deal, the writing on the wall is clear.
Pakistan’s Democratic Compulsions: Will the US Administration Listen?
Pakistan’s Democratic Compulsions: Will the US Administration Listen?
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
America is at war, and as always Pakistani leadership finds it beneficial to side with its powerful ally. Pakistan has been paid ten billion dollars for her services in America’s war on terrorism. The war is still on, the enemy remains elusive, and undefined. The US Congress has expressed its exasperation over this unabating war and continuous loss of life and money without making any meaningful progress. Despite this frustration there is no desire in this country to redefine the war, and readjust its policy in pursuit of its enemies. More of the same, with only cosmetic changes, seems to be the consensus.
On the contrary the people of Pakistan have decisively spoken in favor of change in the so-called war on terror. In the February-2008 elections the people perceived that their country was fighting a war against its own people for the benefit of a foreign power who has helped foist an unpopular military dictator on their heads. This perception may not be wholly correct, but then, in politics perception is the reality; and it does reflect a serious level of disapproval of the current US-Pakistan approach to the problem. In the same election the people also rejected religious parties and voted in favor of secular leadrship.
Equally important is the year-long lawyers’ movement which, despite a long span of time, and its secular nature, remains strong and enjoys popular support. The military dictatorship got its first jolt at the hands of the legal fraternity when dismissal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan was overwhelmingly rejected by the masses and they demanded his restoration. The Chief Justice was restored only to be dismissed again along with sixty other judges on November 3, 2007. This mass dismisal of judges was prompted for no other reason than to pave the way for Musharraf’s illegal re-election. The people and the legal fraternity have stood strong and united in their demand to restore the judges.
Through elections and the lawyers’ movement the people of Pakistan have made it abundantly clear that they are no religiouis fanatics and want to live in peace underr a democratic order and independent judiciary. Will the strongest democracy on earth listen to what the people of Pakistan are saying? Under the changed circumstances when the Washington-favorite Musharraf has no political future in Pakistan the US needs to adjust itself to the new reality.
Pakistan has recived whooping ten billion dollars from the US. The people of Pakistan wonder where all that money has gone. Why this generous cash reward from a friendly country has made no positive impact on their lives. They do not see a single bridge, a highway, a hospital, or an education institution built with this money. It’s time the US stop depending on one discredited dictator and listen to the people of Pakistan.
Extremism has no roots among the masses and it poses a threat to the way of life the people of Pakistan are accuetomed to. Yet the US led war on terrorism has little support among the masses in Pakistan. Poll after poll has demonstrated popular disapproval of the US approach and even worse they are not comfortable with the ultimate objectives of the US.
The Musharraf-Benazir deal, facilitated by the US, visualized a smooth working relationship between the two. With the assassination of Benazir the dynamics changed abruptly. Musharraf and his supporters became even more unpopular. Election results showed that the PPP got less than expected support partly because the party did not take a clear stand on the issue of judges and was tainted by its tacit tolerance of Musharraf in the future set-up. The PPP cannot afford to remain pro-Musharraf and tarry on the restoration of judges without paying a heavy political price. The US should treat the deal as dead and let the political discourse move forward.
It’s counter productive for the US objective to be seen as a supporter of Musharraf and opposed to the restoration of judges. The US shortsightedness on these two issues has done more harm to the war objective than anything else in the recent months.
Pakistan is uneasy with the unprecedented influence India has in the Karazai governemnt. The number of Indian consulates all along he Pakistan-Afghan border makes the Pakistani adminstration uncomfortable. The death of Indian diplomats in a suicide attck on the Indian Embassy in Kabul has further strained mutual distrust. The US should do, whatever it can, to keep India-Pakistan tension out of Afghanistan and not let it affect the Pakistan cooperation with the US.
The US aid to Pakistan should address the economic woes of the people and not just the interests of the undemocratic forces. Supply of wheat to Pakistan as an emergency measure is helpful for mutual relations, but this is a very smal measure. The US can do a lot better by giving greater access to Pakistani exports to the US markets. If the US feels it cannot give preferentail treatment to one country, it can make this accessibility for a certain period of time, may be five years. This one measure would go a long way in winning over the Pakistani business conmmunity and improving the economic situation in that country.
When the Prime Minister of Pakistan Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani visits Washington next week the Administration would be better advised to let the new leadership feel that their country is relevant to the US in a broader policy perspective and not just on the issue of terrorism. The US should not be seen supporting a discredted dictator and holding the Pakistan government back on the issue of the restoration of judges. Let these isues be resolved through the internal political dynamics of Pakistan. There is a limit to which the US can engineer Pakistan’s messy politics, without harming its long-term policy objectives. It’s easy to work with one man who has all the power, and not so easy when you are dealing with a democraticaly elected coalition government, which is answerable to the people. The US has to adjust itself to the new reality in Pakistan, and give a wide berth to a man who has little to offer.
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
America is at war, and as always Pakistani leadership finds it beneficial to side with its powerful ally. Pakistan has been paid ten billion dollars for her services in America’s war on terrorism. The war is still on, the enemy remains elusive, and undefined. The US Congress has expressed its exasperation over this unabating war and continuous loss of life and money without making any meaningful progress. Despite this frustration there is no desire in this country to redefine the war, and readjust its policy in pursuit of its enemies. More of the same, with only cosmetic changes, seems to be the consensus.
On the contrary the people of Pakistan have decisively spoken in favor of change in the so-called war on terror. In the February-2008 elections the people perceived that their country was fighting a war against its own people for the benefit of a foreign power who has helped foist an unpopular military dictator on their heads. This perception may not be wholly correct, but then, in politics perception is the reality; and it does reflect a serious level of disapproval of the current US-Pakistan approach to the problem. In the same election the people also rejected religious parties and voted in favor of secular leadrship.
Equally important is the year-long lawyers’ movement which, despite a long span of time, and its secular nature, remains strong and enjoys popular support. The military dictatorship got its first jolt at the hands of the legal fraternity when dismissal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan was overwhelmingly rejected by the masses and they demanded his restoration. The Chief Justice was restored only to be dismissed again along with sixty other judges on November 3, 2007. This mass dismisal of judges was prompted for no other reason than to pave the way for Musharraf’s illegal re-election. The people and the legal fraternity have stood strong and united in their demand to restore the judges.
Through elections and the lawyers’ movement the people of Pakistan have made it abundantly clear that they are no religiouis fanatics and want to live in peace underr a democratic order and independent judiciary. Will the strongest democracy on earth listen to what the people of Pakistan are saying? Under the changed circumstances when the Washington-favorite Musharraf has no political future in Pakistan the US needs to adjust itself to the new reality.
Pakistan has recived whooping ten billion dollars from the US. The people of Pakistan wonder where all that money has gone. Why this generous cash reward from a friendly country has made no positive impact on their lives. They do not see a single bridge, a highway, a hospital, or an education institution built with this money. It’s time the US stop depending on one discredited dictator and listen to the people of Pakistan.
Extremism has no roots among the masses and it poses a threat to the way of life the people of Pakistan are accuetomed to. Yet the US led war on terrorism has little support among the masses in Pakistan. Poll after poll has demonstrated popular disapproval of the US approach and even worse they are not comfortable with the ultimate objectives of the US.
The Musharraf-Benazir deal, facilitated by the US, visualized a smooth working relationship between the two. With the assassination of Benazir the dynamics changed abruptly. Musharraf and his supporters became even more unpopular. Election results showed that the PPP got less than expected support partly because the party did not take a clear stand on the issue of judges and was tainted by its tacit tolerance of Musharraf in the future set-up. The PPP cannot afford to remain pro-Musharraf and tarry on the restoration of judges without paying a heavy political price. The US should treat the deal as dead and let the political discourse move forward.
It’s counter productive for the US objective to be seen as a supporter of Musharraf and opposed to the restoration of judges. The US shortsightedness on these two issues has done more harm to the war objective than anything else in the recent months.
Pakistan is uneasy with the unprecedented influence India has in the Karazai governemnt. The number of Indian consulates all along he Pakistan-Afghan border makes the Pakistani adminstration uncomfortable. The death of Indian diplomats in a suicide attck on the Indian Embassy in Kabul has further strained mutual distrust. The US should do, whatever it can, to keep India-Pakistan tension out of Afghanistan and not let it affect the Pakistan cooperation with the US.
The US aid to Pakistan should address the economic woes of the people and not just the interests of the undemocratic forces. Supply of wheat to Pakistan as an emergency measure is helpful for mutual relations, but this is a very smal measure. The US can do a lot better by giving greater access to Pakistani exports to the US markets. If the US feels it cannot give preferentail treatment to one country, it can make this accessibility for a certain period of time, may be five years. This one measure would go a long way in winning over the Pakistani business conmmunity and improving the economic situation in that country.
When the Prime Minister of Pakistan Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani visits Washington next week the Administration would be better advised to let the new leadership feel that their country is relevant to the US in a broader policy perspective and not just on the issue of terrorism. The US should not be seen supporting a discredted dictator and holding the Pakistan government back on the issue of the restoration of judges. Let these isues be resolved through the internal political dynamics of Pakistan. There is a limit to which the US can engineer Pakistan’s messy politics, without harming its long-term policy objectives. It’s easy to work with one man who has all the power, and not so easy when you are dealing with a democraticaly elected coalition government, which is answerable to the people. The US has to adjust itself to the new reality in Pakistan, and give a wide berth to a man who has little to offer.
Beware! All Fundamentalists Look Alike
Beware! All Fundamentalists Look Alike
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles California
The term ‘fundamentalism’ and the militant religious phenomenon it refers to are American innovations from the early 20th century. Originally the term described the conservative Evangelical Protestant movement in America that insisted on the literal reading of the Bible and rejected modernity as a whole, and modernist theories of biblical criticism. It follows that when scientific evidence demonstrates that the earth is round and it revolves around the sun, it should be rejected because the Bible says otherwise; hence the Flat Earth Society. When asked ‘Why do you say the earth is flat, when the vast majority says otherwise?’ The answer on their webpage is “because we know the truth.’ And the ‘truth’ is that ‘the world is static, the fixed center of the Universe. The sun, planets and stars all revolve around it…’
‘Flat earth’ may be an extreme case of ‘fundamentalist truth’ yet it reveals some basic characteristics of all fundamentalists who are jostling for power to establish the hegemony of their exclusive ‘truth’. This mindset of being the exclusive repository of truth in all fields leaves no room for argument.
‘Fundamentalism’ is pejorative term and is now applied to a vast variety of religious movements across the globe. This one-size-fits-all approach makes it inevitable that it has to be a loose-fit. All popular and scholarly discussions about fundamentalism express their reservations regarding the applicability of this term to a given social phenomenon, and yet the term is employed with zest by all.
Fundamentalism is raging in almost all major religions of the world - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Despite the fact that fundamentalist movements are very different in approach and ‘truthfulness’ of their message they share a good deal of common characteristics.
They all reject and deplore modernity and its capitalistic, industrial, and scientific progress, and yet make use of the same tools of technological advancement to argue against it.
Their invariable first reaction to a scientific innovation is rejectionistic, and once it becomes widespread and accepted by the general public they too embrace it without repudiating their initial stance of rejection. The case in point is television, and man’s landing on the moon.
Once they accept these modernist scientific inventions, they take a step further to claim that their holy scriptures, in fact, had foreseen it. From the same book which they used earlier to claim that the invention was sinful, they quote verses this time to prove that this particular invention was foretold. Spherical shape of the heavenly bodies, their revolution, and man’s ability to reach them are some of the cases.
Most of them start as a non-political movement and claim that they are only trying to improve general morality of the public; pretty soon they are seen jockeying for political power. American evangelicals are today one of the most powerful political groups on the national political chessboard. They have exercised unprecedented influence in the decision making in the current Administration.
Despite their growing political clout in the given polity and their wheeling dealing for political power they continue to reject politics as something unbecoming of a pious person. The ulema in Pakistan had declared electoral politics as un-Islamic and stayed out of it till 1970 when they feared that the Jamaat-e-Islami because of its earlier acceptance of electioneering was emerging as the sole spokesman of Islam. They all jumped into this pool of hitherto un-Islamic Western-created world of politics. Once they entered electoral politics they have come to stay, and conveniently forgotten that it was something they had vehemently rejected earlier. In the case of Jewish and Christian fundamentalists, the rejection of politics was even more deeply ingrained for theological reasons. And yet they are there in parliaments and city councils pursuing their peculiar politics.
If they feel they cannot achieve their objectives through peaceful political means they readily resort to militancy. They go for bombing abortion clinics, killing civilians indiscriminately, barring people of color from schools and buses, evicting people from their homes at gun point, and demolishing historical monuments; all in the name of religion and God, and without any qualms of conscience. This is happening from the USA to Israel, to India, to Pakistan, and to Indonesia.
Violence is natural to them, and peaceful co-existence with tolerance of difference of opinion, religion, and even race in some cases is anathema to them.
They have a self-serving view of a ‘golden age’ and history seems to have come to an end there. They refuse to accept that Time, an eternal verity, which is only next to God Almighty, who is above time and space, has made any difference in human advancement.
We are headed toward the age of faith it seems, after living through the aggressiveness of secularism in the previous century. Let’s try to keep our balance; we the Muslims are the Ummah of moderation and balance, and should be able to maintain that tradition and ideal.
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles California
The term ‘fundamentalism’ and the militant religious phenomenon it refers to are American innovations from the early 20th century. Originally the term described the conservative Evangelical Protestant movement in America that insisted on the literal reading of the Bible and rejected modernity as a whole, and modernist theories of biblical criticism. It follows that when scientific evidence demonstrates that the earth is round and it revolves around the sun, it should be rejected because the Bible says otherwise; hence the Flat Earth Society. When asked ‘Why do you say the earth is flat, when the vast majority says otherwise?’ The answer on their webpage is “because we know the truth.’ And the ‘truth’ is that ‘the world is static, the fixed center of the Universe. The sun, planets and stars all revolve around it…’
‘Flat earth’ may be an extreme case of ‘fundamentalist truth’ yet it reveals some basic characteristics of all fundamentalists who are jostling for power to establish the hegemony of their exclusive ‘truth’. This mindset of being the exclusive repository of truth in all fields leaves no room for argument.
‘Fundamentalism’ is pejorative term and is now applied to a vast variety of religious movements across the globe. This one-size-fits-all approach makes it inevitable that it has to be a loose-fit. All popular and scholarly discussions about fundamentalism express their reservations regarding the applicability of this term to a given social phenomenon, and yet the term is employed with zest by all.
Fundamentalism is raging in almost all major religions of the world - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Despite the fact that fundamentalist movements are very different in approach and ‘truthfulness’ of their message they share a good deal of common characteristics.
They all reject and deplore modernity and its capitalistic, industrial, and scientific progress, and yet make use of the same tools of technological advancement to argue against it.
Their invariable first reaction to a scientific innovation is rejectionistic, and once it becomes widespread and accepted by the general public they too embrace it without repudiating their initial stance of rejection. The case in point is television, and man’s landing on the moon.
Once they accept these modernist scientific inventions, they take a step further to claim that their holy scriptures, in fact, had foreseen it. From the same book which they used earlier to claim that the invention was sinful, they quote verses this time to prove that this particular invention was foretold. Spherical shape of the heavenly bodies, their revolution, and man’s ability to reach them are some of the cases.
Most of them start as a non-political movement and claim that they are only trying to improve general morality of the public; pretty soon they are seen jockeying for political power. American evangelicals are today one of the most powerful political groups on the national political chessboard. They have exercised unprecedented influence in the decision making in the current Administration.
Despite their growing political clout in the given polity and their wheeling dealing for political power they continue to reject politics as something unbecoming of a pious person. The ulema in Pakistan had declared electoral politics as un-Islamic and stayed out of it till 1970 when they feared that the Jamaat-e-Islami because of its earlier acceptance of electioneering was emerging as the sole spokesman of Islam. They all jumped into this pool of hitherto un-Islamic Western-created world of politics. Once they entered electoral politics they have come to stay, and conveniently forgotten that it was something they had vehemently rejected earlier. In the case of Jewish and Christian fundamentalists, the rejection of politics was even more deeply ingrained for theological reasons. And yet they are there in parliaments and city councils pursuing their peculiar politics.
If they feel they cannot achieve their objectives through peaceful political means they readily resort to militancy. They go for bombing abortion clinics, killing civilians indiscriminately, barring people of color from schools and buses, evicting people from their homes at gun point, and demolishing historical monuments; all in the name of religion and God, and without any qualms of conscience. This is happening from the USA to Israel, to India, to Pakistan, and to Indonesia.
Violence is natural to them, and peaceful co-existence with tolerance of difference of opinion, religion, and even race in some cases is anathema to them.
They have a self-serving view of a ‘golden age’ and history seems to have come to an end there. They refuse to accept that Time, an eternal verity, which is only next to God Almighty, who is above time and space, has made any difference in human advancement.
We are headed toward the age of faith it seems, after living through the aggressiveness of secularism in the previous century. Let’s try to keep our balance; we the Muslims are the Ummah of moderation and balance, and should be able to maintain that tradition and ideal.
A Tribute to Mahmoud Darwish
A Tribute to Mahmoud Darwish
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
Mahmoud Darwish, the Palestinian ‘poet of resistance’, whose blazing lyrics on the Palestinian experience of dispossession, occupation, alienation, and exile made him a leading cultural voice, and the most eminent Arabic poet of his time, breathed his last on August 9, in Houston, after undergoing heart surgery.
Pakistan’s leading Urdu poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Mehmoud Darwish had many things common in the stories of their lives, political ideas, and the theme and diction of their poetry.
Darwish helped forge national consciousness of the Palestinian people and articulated their collective will to resist tyranny and injustice in all forms and places. Faiz attained poetic eminence after the creation of Pakistan and helped evolve a collective consciousness in delineating the ideals of the people in the new republic. Faiz exposed the hollowness of political leadership, and cruelty of the feudal system that continued to oppress those who had suffered most in the quest for a new homeland.
Like all great poets Darwish and Faiz transcended their personal experiences and group consciousness and transformed them into a universal message of eternal human struggle in the cosmic order. The trauma of eviction, the pain of exile, and deprivation of identity in Darwish’s life turned into searing lyrics of unremitting human sufferings, and struggle. Through his poetic genius he kept the torch of freedom alight in face of strong winds of opposition blowing in the dark nights.
Faiz and Darwish were heavy smokers, suffered heart problems that ultimately led to their deaths. Darwish lived without a homeland of his own, and yet his people gave him a ‘state funeral’ and showered great honorifics on him. Faiz lived in a free homeland and was buried relatively quietly without stately trappings.
Darwish was virtually a national poet and one of the most sought-after persons in literary circles. But, he always remained averse to public exposure and media spotlight. He was more comfortable with a small circle of friends. Faiz shared these personality traits with Darwish.
Darwish was born in 1941 in the village of Al Birwa. In 1948 when he was seven the family was forced to flee to Lebanon. A year later they sneaked back into their homeland and lived there illegally. Birwa along with 400 other Palestinian villages had been razed to make space for new settlements. Darwish and his family became internal refugees defined as “present-absent aliens.” This childhood experience made him realize why and how they were second-class citizen in their own land. As a schoolboy he wrote a poem for an anniversary of the foundation of Israel. In this poem, as Darwish recalled many years later, he addressed a Jewish classmate and said, ‘You can play in the sun as you please, and have your toys, but I can't. You have a house, and I have none. You have celebrations, but I have none. Why can't we play together?" He was summoned to see the military governor, who threatened him: "If you go on writing such poetry, I'll stop your father working in the quarry." Things have not changed for the people of Palestine in the last sixty years.
Darwish was imprisoned repeatedly for his writings and political activities. He was an active member of the Communist Party of Israel. He left the country second time in 1970 and lived in exile in Moscow, Cairo, Paris, Tunisia, and Beirut. The Soviet Union awarded him Lotus prize in 1969 and the Lenin peace prize in 1983. He won the Lannan Foundation Prize for Cultural Freedom in 2001. He was also awarded the Prince Claus Fund in Amsterdam in 2004. In his acceptance speech there he said, "A person can only be born in one place. However, he may die several times elsewhere: in the exiles and prisons, and in a homeland transformed by the occupation and oppression into a nightmare. Poetry is perhaps what teaches us to nurture the charming illusion: how to be reborn out of ourselves over and over again, and use words to construct a better world, a fictitious world that enables us to sign a pact for a permanent and comprehensive peace ... with life." Faiz also won the Lenin Peace Prize, and had communist leanings in his political orientations. The theme of being reborn from ones own self again and again is integral to Faiz’s poetry.
Darwish published his first collection of poetry Wingless Birds at the age of nineteen, followed by twenty-four publications; nineteen in poetry and five in prose. His works have been translated into more than 22 languages.
"Identity Card" (1964) was his first poem that brought him prominence. It said:
“Write down at the top of the first page:
I do not hate people.
I steal from no one.
However
If I am hungry
I will eat the flesh of my usurper.
Beware! Beware of my hunger
And of my anger.”
Darwish saw life through the Palestinian prism. In his poetry Palestine is not just a piece of land, it’s a metaphor, and a symbol for the loss of paradise, exile, dispossession, alienation, helplessness, sorrows, and resolve to keep going till the dawn breaks.
Refugee
They fettered his mouth with chains,
And tied his hands to the rock of the dead.
They said: You're a murderer.
They took his food, his clothes and his banners,
And threw him into the well of the dead.
They said: You're a thief.
They threw him out of every port,
And took away his young beloved.
And then they said: You're a refugee.
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
Mahmoud Darwish, the Palestinian ‘poet of resistance’, whose blazing lyrics on the Palestinian experience of dispossession, occupation, alienation, and exile made him a leading cultural voice, and the most eminent Arabic poet of his time, breathed his last on August 9, in Houston, after undergoing heart surgery.
Pakistan’s leading Urdu poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Mehmoud Darwish had many things common in the stories of their lives, political ideas, and the theme and diction of their poetry.
Darwish helped forge national consciousness of the Palestinian people and articulated their collective will to resist tyranny and injustice in all forms and places. Faiz attained poetic eminence after the creation of Pakistan and helped evolve a collective consciousness in delineating the ideals of the people in the new republic. Faiz exposed the hollowness of political leadership, and cruelty of the feudal system that continued to oppress those who had suffered most in the quest for a new homeland.
Like all great poets Darwish and Faiz transcended their personal experiences and group consciousness and transformed them into a universal message of eternal human struggle in the cosmic order. The trauma of eviction, the pain of exile, and deprivation of identity in Darwish’s life turned into searing lyrics of unremitting human sufferings, and struggle. Through his poetic genius he kept the torch of freedom alight in face of strong winds of opposition blowing in the dark nights.
Faiz and Darwish were heavy smokers, suffered heart problems that ultimately led to their deaths. Darwish lived without a homeland of his own, and yet his people gave him a ‘state funeral’ and showered great honorifics on him. Faiz lived in a free homeland and was buried relatively quietly without stately trappings.
Darwish was virtually a national poet and one of the most sought-after persons in literary circles. But, he always remained averse to public exposure and media spotlight. He was more comfortable with a small circle of friends. Faiz shared these personality traits with Darwish.
Darwish was born in 1941 in the village of Al Birwa. In 1948 when he was seven the family was forced to flee to Lebanon. A year later they sneaked back into their homeland and lived there illegally. Birwa along with 400 other Palestinian villages had been razed to make space for new settlements. Darwish and his family became internal refugees defined as “present-absent aliens.” This childhood experience made him realize why and how they were second-class citizen in their own land. As a schoolboy he wrote a poem for an anniversary of the foundation of Israel. In this poem, as Darwish recalled many years later, he addressed a Jewish classmate and said, ‘You can play in the sun as you please, and have your toys, but I can't. You have a house, and I have none. You have celebrations, but I have none. Why can't we play together?" He was summoned to see the military governor, who threatened him: "If you go on writing such poetry, I'll stop your father working in the quarry." Things have not changed for the people of Palestine in the last sixty years.
Darwish was imprisoned repeatedly for his writings and political activities. He was an active member of the Communist Party of Israel. He left the country second time in 1970 and lived in exile in Moscow, Cairo, Paris, Tunisia, and Beirut. The Soviet Union awarded him Lotus prize in 1969 and the Lenin peace prize in 1983. He won the Lannan Foundation Prize for Cultural Freedom in 2001. He was also awarded the Prince Claus Fund in Amsterdam in 2004. In his acceptance speech there he said, "A person can only be born in one place. However, he may die several times elsewhere: in the exiles and prisons, and in a homeland transformed by the occupation and oppression into a nightmare. Poetry is perhaps what teaches us to nurture the charming illusion: how to be reborn out of ourselves over and over again, and use words to construct a better world, a fictitious world that enables us to sign a pact for a permanent and comprehensive peace ... with life." Faiz also won the Lenin Peace Prize, and had communist leanings in his political orientations. The theme of being reborn from ones own self again and again is integral to Faiz’s poetry.
Darwish published his first collection of poetry Wingless Birds at the age of nineteen, followed by twenty-four publications; nineteen in poetry and five in prose. His works have been translated into more than 22 languages.
"Identity Card" (1964) was his first poem that brought him prominence. It said:
“Write down at the top of the first page:
I do not hate people.
I steal from no one.
However
If I am hungry
I will eat the flesh of my usurper.
Beware! Beware of my hunger
And of my anger.”
Darwish saw life through the Palestinian prism. In his poetry Palestine is not just a piece of land, it’s a metaphor, and a symbol for the loss of paradise, exile, dispossession, alienation, helplessness, sorrows, and resolve to keep going till the dawn breaks.
Refugee
They fettered his mouth with chains,
And tied his hands to the rock of the dead.
They said: You're a murderer.
They took his food, his clothes and his banners,
And threw him into the well of the dead.
They said: You're a thief.
They threw him out of every port,
And took away his young beloved.
And then they said: You're a refugee.
War on Terrorism Is Not a 'War'
War on Terrorism Is Not a 'War'
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
Terrorism as a tool to achieve political objectives is a centuries old phenomenon. The declining Abbasid Empire of Baghdad was the first, in documented history, to suffer a sustained campaign of terrorism at the hands of the "hashishin' (who gave us the word assassin). But that's history, and it's not always comfortable to look into the mirror of history that gives you an in-depth view of the self. Modern history of terrorism, however, starts only from 1968 when the US Ambassador to Guatemala was assassinated in his car by a group of rebels in that country.
The tragedy of September 2001 brought the scourge of terrorism to the US soil and horrified millions of Americans. The people and the government gave a swift and determined response, demonstrating to the world that they could not be terrified.
Unfortunately this moment of courage and unity was surreptitiously appropriated by a group of people within the state apparatus to pursue their long frustrated agenda of foreign and security policy in the world, particularly in the Middle East. American public was disenchanted, even frustrated when they realized how the 9/11 tragedy had been used as an excuse to create demons of fear in pursuit of a different agenda.
It took almost seven years for a think tank like RAND to come to the conclusion that the 'war on terrorism' should not be called a 'war' and that the current American policy is flawed and 'the United States should fundamentally rethink its strategy'.
The proponents of 'war' and pursuers of pre-conceived agenda must be fuming but the fact remains that it's not late to re-orient American policy against terrorism. The report "HOW TERRORIST GROUPS END: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida" examines — and critiques — the current US approach, which relies predominantly on military force to target terrorist network. It analyses terrorism related data spread over forty years and concludes that in 43% cases terrorist groups ceased to exist either because their members decided to adopt nonviolent tactics and joined the mainstream political process, and in 40% instances local law-enforcement agencies arrested or killed key members of the group. Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups. Military operations were successful only in 7% cases.
Policing and political action with the involvement of the community are the most effective means of alienating and eliminating terrorist groups. The logic for this success is straightforward: Police generally have better training and intelligence to penetrate and disrupt terrorist organizations. Police have a permanent presence in cities, towns, and villages; a better understanding of local communities than other security forces; and better intelligence. This enables them to be best suited to understand and penetrate terrorist networks.
The report suggests that the law enforcement agencies should actively encourage and cultivate cooperation by building strong ties with community leaders, including elected officials, civil servants, clerics, businessmen, and teachers, among others, and thereby enlist their assistance and support.
Unlike police action, the use of military force against terrorist groups has a number of organizational and structural limitations. In most cases, these groups are small, making it difficult to engage them with large, conventional forces. Military forces may be able to penetrate and garrison an area that terrorist groups frequent and, if well sustained, may temporarily reduce terrorist activity. But once the situation becomes untenable in one area (say in Iraq), terrorists simply transfer their activity to another area (say Afghanistan), and the problem remains unresolved. Also, military force is usually too blunt an instrument for countering terrorism. The use of massive military power against terrorist groups also runs a significant risk of turning the population against the government.
Contrary to government claims that the 'terrorists are on the run' the RAND report argues that al Qa'ida has been involved in more terrorist attacks in a wider geographical area since September 11, 2001, than it had been during its previous history. It quotes a CIA veteran to claim that "Al Qaeda is a more dangerous enemy today than it has ever been before."
The report calls for police-oriented counter-terrorism rather than a "War on Terrorism". The authors take issue with the government and media for looking at the counter-terrorism campaign as a 'war'. Seth Jones, the lead author of the study, is reported to have said that "terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism" The key to the success of proposed strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counter-terrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today.
The trouble is 'war on terror' has become a cliché and a means of scoring political points here and a debating point there. A number of countries in the world are facing terrorism in various forms and have been fighting against them with various measures of success and failure, but none has declared a 'war on terrorism'.
The law enforcement approach to counter-terrorism is not new, but this time it's backed by a serious study based on the analysis of a huge database. If it have any meaningful influence in the corridors of power remains to be seen.
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
Terrorism as a tool to achieve political objectives is a centuries old phenomenon. The declining Abbasid Empire of Baghdad was the first, in documented history, to suffer a sustained campaign of terrorism at the hands of the "hashishin' (who gave us the word assassin). But that's history, and it's not always comfortable to look into the mirror of history that gives you an in-depth view of the self. Modern history of terrorism, however, starts only from 1968 when the US Ambassador to Guatemala was assassinated in his car by a group of rebels in that country.
The tragedy of September 2001 brought the scourge of terrorism to the US soil and horrified millions of Americans. The people and the government gave a swift and determined response, demonstrating to the world that they could not be terrified.
Unfortunately this moment of courage and unity was surreptitiously appropriated by a group of people within the state apparatus to pursue their long frustrated agenda of foreign and security policy in the world, particularly in the Middle East. American public was disenchanted, even frustrated when they realized how the 9/11 tragedy had been used as an excuse to create demons of fear in pursuit of a different agenda.
It took almost seven years for a think tank like RAND to come to the conclusion that the 'war on terrorism' should not be called a 'war' and that the current American policy is flawed and 'the United States should fundamentally rethink its strategy'.
The proponents of 'war' and pursuers of pre-conceived agenda must be fuming but the fact remains that it's not late to re-orient American policy against terrorism. The report "HOW TERRORIST GROUPS END: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida" examines — and critiques — the current US approach, which relies predominantly on military force to target terrorist network. It analyses terrorism related data spread over forty years and concludes that in 43% cases terrorist groups ceased to exist either because their members decided to adopt nonviolent tactics and joined the mainstream political process, and in 40% instances local law-enforcement agencies arrested or killed key members of the group. Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups. Military operations were successful only in 7% cases.
Policing and political action with the involvement of the community are the most effective means of alienating and eliminating terrorist groups. The logic for this success is straightforward: Police generally have better training and intelligence to penetrate and disrupt terrorist organizations. Police have a permanent presence in cities, towns, and villages; a better understanding of local communities than other security forces; and better intelligence. This enables them to be best suited to understand and penetrate terrorist networks.
The report suggests that the law enforcement agencies should actively encourage and cultivate cooperation by building strong ties with community leaders, including elected officials, civil servants, clerics, businessmen, and teachers, among others, and thereby enlist their assistance and support.
Unlike police action, the use of military force against terrorist groups has a number of organizational and structural limitations. In most cases, these groups are small, making it difficult to engage them with large, conventional forces. Military forces may be able to penetrate and garrison an area that terrorist groups frequent and, if well sustained, may temporarily reduce terrorist activity. But once the situation becomes untenable in one area (say in Iraq), terrorists simply transfer their activity to another area (say Afghanistan), and the problem remains unresolved. Also, military force is usually too blunt an instrument for countering terrorism. The use of massive military power against terrorist groups also runs a significant risk of turning the population against the government.
Contrary to government claims that the 'terrorists are on the run' the RAND report argues that al Qa'ida has been involved in more terrorist attacks in a wider geographical area since September 11, 2001, than it had been during its previous history. It quotes a CIA veteran to claim that "Al Qaeda is a more dangerous enemy today than it has ever been before."
The report calls for police-oriented counter-terrorism rather than a "War on Terrorism". The authors take issue with the government and media for looking at the counter-terrorism campaign as a 'war'. Seth Jones, the lead author of the study, is reported to have said that "terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism" The key to the success of proposed strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counter-terrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today.
The trouble is 'war on terror' has become a cliché and a means of scoring political points here and a debating point there. A number of countries in the world are facing terrorism in various forms and have been fighting against them with various measures of success and failure, but none has declared a 'war on terrorism'.
The law enforcement approach to counter-terrorism is not new, but this time it's backed by a serious study based on the analysis of a huge database. If it have any meaningful influence in the corridors of power remains to be seen.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Why New Sanctions Against Iran: Will they Work?
World Powers Agree on Sanctions Against Iran:
Will Sanctions Ease the Nuclear Stand off
Shakil Rai
May 26, 2010
The Obama administration has been on the defensive against the right wing onslaught, and has increasingly positioned itself closer to the neo-cons on the questions of “war on terrorism”, nuclear proliferation, and peace in the Middle East. The new round of UN sanctions on Iran should be viewed in this context.
The sanctions are sweeping in scope, more punitive, and crippling than the ones currently in force. The fact that sanctions have not achieved the stated objectives before, in the case of Iran or other nations, has not discouraged the forces behind the current drive. It’s unlikely that under pressure of the new sanctions Iran would abandon its uranium enrichment program, or weaken the clerical regime to the point of collapse. If anything the sanctions are more likely to strengthen the mullah’s grip on power. They would use the situation to their advantage and blame every hardship the people are going to face on the “great Satan”. They will use it as a rallying cry to unite the nation behind them. This would weaken democratic opposition to the regime, and strengthen collective Iranian resolve to pursue nuclear program. It’s significant to note that even the strongest political opponents of the theocratic regime in Iran are supportive of their country’s right to enrich uranium on its soil; on this point government and opposition stand together.
One may wonder why then the US would pursue a new round of sanctions so vigorously if they know they are not going to produce the desired result. It can be argued that those who have advocated the case for new sanctions are looking beyond the sanctions regime. The idea may be to cripple the Iranian economy, destroy its financial institutions like banks and insurance companies who cannot have any business with any company outside Iran. This financial squeeze is expected to considerably weaken Iranian defense capability especially its missile program, and slow down uranium enrichment program. Economic hardships, some may think, will make people sick of the government and receptive to the idea of a deliverer. At that stage Iran’s nuclear and military installations can be destroyed in a massive aerial attack.
This possible line of action is indicated in successful use of US pressure on Moscow to suspend an arms deal between Russian and Iran. Moscow and Tehran had signed a deal for the sale of S-300 antiaircraft missiles to Iran. The US argued that delivery of such a weapon system would enable Iran to “shoot down American or Israeli warplanes should either try to bomb its nuclear facilities”, says a report in the New York Times, of May 26.
Another reason for this rush is to undermine the nuclear swap deal worked out by Turkey and Brazil with Iran. Although this deal was not comprehensive; it did not provide a detailed mechanism for implementation, and had many a loose end. Yet it provided a solid basis on which, if they so desired, they could build a comprehensive uranium swap program with the involvement of IAEA and the UNSC. After all it was almost identical arrangement that was proposed less than a year ago with American approval, and accepted by Iran. Iran though went back on it probably under pressure from the hardliners within the regime, and again came round it this time. It may be a tactical move, on the part if Iran, to buy more time, and dodge the forthcoming sanctions at for the time being. If that is the case Iran needs to be exposed. That exposure could come through the implementation of the deal and not by scuttling it.
The basic point in this whole dispute is the insistence of Iran that under the NPT she has a sovereign right to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. A considerable number of third world countries who are signatories of the NPT including several Arab countries do not want to give up this sovereign right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. The West led by the USA want Iran and others to surrender this right, and amend the NPT accordingly. The nuclear haves and the have-nots are poles apart in their perception of peaceful use of nuclear energy and monopoly of the few on it. There is little room for compromise on that one point. While most of them agree on the need for a more comprehensive NPT regime to guard against cheating, they do not want to give up their right to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, nor do they wish to see the nuclear haves endlessly maintain their control over this renewable source of energy.
The sanctions are coming, no matter what, but to make them work what the US really needs to do is to improve its credibility in the eyes of the world by being honest about nuclear imbalance in the world, and particularly in the Middle East. Iran seems to pose a mortal threat with its nuclear weapons which are not even on its drawing board yet, while Israel’s huge stockpile of nuclear weapons is treated as nonexistent, even benign for peace. This approach may humor the neo-cons and right wing detractors of the Obama administration; it’s not likely to convince anyone else about the seriousness of the US administration’s efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East, or to the ultimate goal of nuclear-weapon-free world.
To this end the US need to initiate serious effort to achieve a nuclear weapon free Middle East as envisaged in the NPT Review Conference resolution in 1995. Some Arab countries closely allied with the US are trying to revive this dormant resolution and get some traction for it in the current NPT conference. Will the US and her European nuclear allies give this noble objective a chance and make a serious beginning to rid the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction, first, and then implement the same model the world over. A step in this direction will assure the world that the nuclear haves are indeed serious in the effort to achieve a nuclear weapon free world, as envisaged in the NPT.
At the same time, Iran is not an innocent victim of a vindictive super power, as some may like to believe. Iran does share the blame for not coming clean on the matter. It started its nuclear program surreptitiously. When caught, it allowed IAEA inspections to prove its peaceful intentions. At the same time it started working on another nuclear site without informing IAEA as required under the NPT. This gives rise to serious security concern among Iran’s neighbors. Leave Israel aside, no one in the region wants Iran to become a nuclear weapon state; it will cause fundamental change in the security dynamics of the region. Iran must realize that and work out its strategy accordingly.
The US also needs to realize after the Iraq fiasco that it cannot dictate its will through the barrel of the gun alone, nor it can continue with traditional uneven approach to peace in the Middle East. The neo-cons cannot be pleased, no matter what you do, but you have a historic chance to bring peace to this ravaged region.
Will Sanctions Ease the Nuclear Stand off
Shakil Rai
May 26, 2010
The Obama administration has been on the defensive against the right wing onslaught, and has increasingly positioned itself closer to the neo-cons on the questions of “war on terrorism”, nuclear proliferation, and peace in the Middle East. The new round of UN sanctions on Iran should be viewed in this context.
The sanctions are sweeping in scope, more punitive, and crippling than the ones currently in force. The fact that sanctions have not achieved the stated objectives before, in the case of Iran or other nations, has not discouraged the forces behind the current drive. It’s unlikely that under pressure of the new sanctions Iran would abandon its uranium enrichment program, or weaken the clerical regime to the point of collapse. If anything the sanctions are more likely to strengthen the mullah’s grip on power. They would use the situation to their advantage and blame every hardship the people are going to face on the “great Satan”. They will use it as a rallying cry to unite the nation behind them. This would weaken democratic opposition to the regime, and strengthen collective Iranian resolve to pursue nuclear program. It’s significant to note that even the strongest political opponents of the theocratic regime in Iran are supportive of their country’s right to enrich uranium on its soil; on this point government and opposition stand together.
One may wonder why then the US would pursue a new round of sanctions so vigorously if they know they are not going to produce the desired result. It can be argued that those who have advocated the case for new sanctions are looking beyond the sanctions regime. The idea may be to cripple the Iranian economy, destroy its financial institutions like banks and insurance companies who cannot have any business with any company outside Iran. This financial squeeze is expected to considerably weaken Iranian defense capability especially its missile program, and slow down uranium enrichment program. Economic hardships, some may think, will make people sick of the government and receptive to the idea of a deliverer. At that stage Iran’s nuclear and military installations can be destroyed in a massive aerial attack.
This possible line of action is indicated in successful use of US pressure on Moscow to suspend an arms deal between Russian and Iran. Moscow and Tehran had signed a deal for the sale of S-300 antiaircraft missiles to Iran. The US argued that delivery of such a weapon system would enable Iran to “shoot down American or Israeli warplanes should either try to bomb its nuclear facilities”, says a report in the New York Times, of May 26.
Another reason for this rush is to undermine the nuclear swap deal worked out by Turkey and Brazil with Iran. Although this deal was not comprehensive; it did not provide a detailed mechanism for implementation, and had many a loose end. Yet it provided a solid basis on which, if they so desired, they could build a comprehensive uranium swap program with the involvement of IAEA and the UNSC. After all it was almost identical arrangement that was proposed less than a year ago with American approval, and accepted by Iran. Iran though went back on it probably under pressure from the hardliners within the regime, and again came round it this time. It may be a tactical move, on the part if Iran, to buy more time, and dodge the forthcoming sanctions at for the time being. If that is the case Iran needs to be exposed. That exposure could come through the implementation of the deal and not by scuttling it.
The basic point in this whole dispute is the insistence of Iran that under the NPT she has a sovereign right to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. A considerable number of third world countries who are signatories of the NPT including several Arab countries do not want to give up this sovereign right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. The West led by the USA want Iran and others to surrender this right, and amend the NPT accordingly. The nuclear haves and the have-nots are poles apart in their perception of peaceful use of nuclear energy and monopoly of the few on it. There is little room for compromise on that one point. While most of them agree on the need for a more comprehensive NPT regime to guard against cheating, they do not want to give up their right to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, nor do they wish to see the nuclear haves endlessly maintain their control over this renewable source of energy.
The sanctions are coming, no matter what, but to make them work what the US really needs to do is to improve its credibility in the eyes of the world by being honest about nuclear imbalance in the world, and particularly in the Middle East. Iran seems to pose a mortal threat with its nuclear weapons which are not even on its drawing board yet, while Israel’s huge stockpile of nuclear weapons is treated as nonexistent, even benign for peace. This approach may humor the neo-cons and right wing detractors of the Obama administration; it’s not likely to convince anyone else about the seriousness of the US administration’s efforts to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East, or to the ultimate goal of nuclear-weapon-free world.
To this end the US need to initiate serious effort to achieve a nuclear weapon free Middle East as envisaged in the NPT Review Conference resolution in 1995. Some Arab countries closely allied with the US are trying to revive this dormant resolution and get some traction for it in the current NPT conference. Will the US and her European nuclear allies give this noble objective a chance and make a serious beginning to rid the Middle East of weapons of mass destruction, first, and then implement the same model the world over. A step in this direction will assure the world that the nuclear haves are indeed serious in the effort to achieve a nuclear weapon free world, as envisaged in the NPT.
At the same time, Iran is not an innocent victim of a vindictive super power, as some may like to believe. Iran does share the blame for not coming clean on the matter. It started its nuclear program surreptitiously. When caught, it allowed IAEA inspections to prove its peaceful intentions. At the same time it started working on another nuclear site without informing IAEA as required under the NPT. This gives rise to serious security concern among Iran’s neighbors. Leave Israel aside, no one in the region wants Iran to become a nuclear weapon state; it will cause fundamental change in the security dynamics of the region. Iran must realize that and work out its strategy accordingly.
The US also needs to realize after the Iraq fiasco that it cannot dictate its will through the barrel of the gun alone, nor it can continue with traditional uneven approach to peace in the Middle East. The neo-cons cannot be pleased, no matter what you do, but you have a historic chance to bring peace to this ravaged region.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
NPT Review Conference 2010: Address Moral Crisis First
NPT- Review Conference 2010
Address the Moral Crisis First
Dr Shakil A Rai
May 12, 2010
NPT review conference currently in progress at the UN in New York is a spectacle of the same old power play, and diplomacy, all cloaked in the pious jargon of world peace, international law, saving the mankind a possible nuclear holocaust, and eventually creating a world free of nuclear weapons for “a global public good of the highest order," as the UN Secretary General very wisely stated. Proclaimed wisdom and professed pious intentions alone cannot achieve meaningful result if implementation of the treaty remains partial, selective, even discriminatory, and manipulative, as has been the case in last four decades.
What was perceived rogue behavior of India in conducting nuclear test in 1998 won her greater respect and got her better reward in the form of US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement. The deals meets all civilian nuclear energy needs of India by giving her ample supply of nuclear material and technology from the US, and at the same time spares her enough resources to pursue military nuclear ambitions unhindered. India, and not the US, decides which nuclear sites are military and hence closed to American intrusion, and which ones are civilian and can be left open to US inspection. India is free to add any number of new nuclear weapon programs, no questions asked. If this is the “punishment” for pursuing the rogue path of nuclear weapons, and refusing to sign NPT who on earth would want to eschew it. This one deal has done more harm to the lofty objectives of NPT than anything else, in recent years.
The deal has made nuclear technology a marketable commodity like any other high-tech product. This allows big nuclear powers to use their know how to buy influence, and make money in the nuclear bazaar, officially inaugurated by the US-India deal. It’s no accident that soon after this deal China signed an agreement with Pakistan to finance two civilian reactors at Chashma. The US is looking at this deal “very carefully”. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg tells us that discussions are underway but have not “reached a final conclusion.” It doesn’t take a genius to guess what that conclusion would be.
Not to be left behind Russia signed an agreement with Turkey early this month to build a nuclear power plant to generate electricity. Nuclear deal is part of multiple economic and trade deals signed between the two countries. Wall Street Journal quotes an analyst saying that among all the multi-billion dollar deals “The prize for Moscow appears to be the nuclear-plant deal.” The US may look “very carefully” at this deal too, but it’s obvious the nuclear bazaar is open for business now; NPT or no NPT.
Pakistan, with some justification, now demands the same reward that Indian got for its once perceived “rogue” behavior. Since Pakistan’s stocks are lower than India’s in the political stock exchange of America, this deal is not likely to come by any time soon. The sheer fact that nuclear stockpile gives you the courage to demand a favor instead of fearing punishment says a lot about the efficacy of NPT and international conscience keepers and law enforcers.
Pakistan’s successful quest for nuclear weapons tells the same story of on-again off-again enforcement of international laws that mock the piety and wisdom of those who pretend to be losing sleep over nuclear proliferation. In 1979 Pakistan was under sanctions for pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program, and was also pilloried for having a military dictatorship that had executed an elected Prime Minister. Everything changed, virtually overnight, when the military forces of the Soviet Union moved into Afghanistan and the US saw a golden opportunity to bleed the Russian bear without putting a single US soldier’s life on the line. Military dictator became “defender of the free world” as President Reagan put it in his welcome address for the erstwhile pariah- Gen Ziaul Haq. The military regime pursued its nuclear ambition at a feverish pitch while the US looked the other way. By 1984 Pakistan had achieved weapon grade enrichment of uranium. There are reasons to believe that the US had pretty good idea of what their ally had been up to in the nuclear field.
Once the Soviet forces retreated from Afghanistan in 1988 the US turned its back on Pakistan and re-imposed sanctions on its ally for pursuing nuclear ambitions. Though it was known, by that time, that Pakistan’s nuclear program had reached an irreversible stage and the sanctions would do nothing to stop or reverse it.
In 1998 India conducts multiple nuclear tests and declares itself a nuclear weapon state. Pakistan conducts tit-for-tat nuclear tests and struts the stage of the nuclear haves claiming nuclear parity with India. Harsh economic and military sanctions are imposed and Pakistan is isolated diplomatically and brought to its knees economically. Just three years passed when the tragedy of 9/11 struck, and the US once again needed Pakistan and its military dictator, who had exiled an elected Prime Minister and practically abrogated the Constitution. Another military dictator becomes a trusted friend and nuclear Pakistan gets billions of dollars to fight “war on terror”.
Let’s have another hypothetical scenario. If Saddam Husain actually had weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deploy them, would “coalition of the willing” have dared launch its attack? Most probably the war mongers of the Bush Administration would have thought about the consequences more carefully if they knew they would face WMDs on the battlefield.
Iran and South Korea both are signatories of NPT and both have pursued clandestine nuclear programs. In 1982 South Korean scientists performed experiment in plutonium extraction. Under US pressure Korea stopped its program and in return got American nuclear reactor and financial assistance for civilian nuclear program. In 2004 it was revealed that South Korea continued to pursue its nuclear program; this time it took the uranium enrichment route. In 2000, Korean scientists enriched uranium to near weapon grade (up to 77%). Both the uranium and the plutonium incidents were not reported to IAEA until 2004. Thereafter IAEA launched an investigation into South Korea’s nuclear activities. It was determined that ROK had failed to report to IAEA as required. This non-compliance was treated as non-issue, however. The matter was never taken up for any possible punitive actions. After all South Koreans are our friends and they are facing a nuclear menace from North Korea. Now there are reports that South Korea is gearing up its resources to have a nuclear powered submarine. This ruffles no feathers, no news in the media, no high sounding condemnations, no threats, and no punitive action.
Iran, is signatory of NPT and has indulged in activities that it should have reported to IAEA. Iran has stretched the NPT provisions to the limit to assert its sovereign right to enrich uranium for ‘peaceful purposes’. Though there are strong parallels between Iran and ROK cases, yet no one seems to worry about Korea, while Iran is treated as evil incarnate, facing ever tougher economic sanctions, and threats of surgical airstrikes. This duplicity may not be visible to the American public but it’s very well known to those who think they are at the wrong end of the nuclear stick.
Then there is Israel’s huge nuclear arsenal, which, if you go by the media coverage in the West, and official response in these capitals it seems there are no WMD in Israel, and whatever there is, is of no concern to anyone. When Egypt tries to remind the NPT bigwigs about a long forgotten resolution that called for nuclear-free Middle East they are told you ‘are protesting too much’.
Power flows from the barrel of the gun, is a maxim that’s true about political power. It may not be true about social, religious, and charismatic power, but the enforcement of political will within state boundaries or inter-state relations is greatly dependent upon the perception of the coercive power of the enforcer. Whether it is law enforcement within a given community or mastery of the trade routes on the high seas, ultimate sanction behind all this is not morality but monopoly of the means of coercion, and violence.
Introduction of nuclear weapons is the most lethal development in human history since the invention of gunpowder. As was the case with gunpowder, no one is going to give up its nuclear capability for “a global public good of the highest order." There will always be reason for states to maintain monopoly of the means of violence and coercion, and to improve their lethality and effectiveness to assert their power against other players on the international scene. Nuclear arsenal being the most deadly and effective mean of self-assertion for states it will remain the most coveted weapon, no matter what say on the podium.
In order to achieve any meaningful result, and to make some progress in reaching the goal of a nuclear-free world, the review conference should try to reduce the ever widening moral gap in the NPT structure, stop being selective in the implementation of the law, and do not manipulate for short term gains.
Address the Moral Crisis First
Dr Shakil A Rai
May 12, 2010
NPT review conference currently in progress at the UN in New York is a spectacle of the same old power play, and diplomacy, all cloaked in the pious jargon of world peace, international law, saving the mankind a possible nuclear holocaust, and eventually creating a world free of nuclear weapons for “a global public good of the highest order," as the UN Secretary General very wisely stated. Proclaimed wisdom and professed pious intentions alone cannot achieve meaningful result if implementation of the treaty remains partial, selective, even discriminatory, and manipulative, as has been the case in last four decades.
What was perceived rogue behavior of India in conducting nuclear test in 1998 won her greater respect and got her better reward in the form of US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement. The deals meets all civilian nuclear energy needs of India by giving her ample supply of nuclear material and technology from the US, and at the same time spares her enough resources to pursue military nuclear ambitions unhindered. India, and not the US, decides which nuclear sites are military and hence closed to American intrusion, and which ones are civilian and can be left open to US inspection. India is free to add any number of new nuclear weapon programs, no questions asked. If this is the “punishment” for pursuing the rogue path of nuclear weapons, and refusing to sign NPT who on earth would want to eschew it. This one deal has done more harm to the lofty objectives of NPT than anything else, in recent years.
The deal has made nuclear technology a marketable commodity like any other high-tech product. This allows big nuclear powers to use their know how to buy influence, and make money in the nuclear bazaar, officially inaugurated by the US-India deal. It’s no accident that soon after this deal China signed an agreement with Pakistan to finance two civilian reactors at Chashma. The US is looking at this deal “very carefully”. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg tells us that discussions are underway but have not “reached a final conclusion.” It doesn’t take a genius to guess what that conclusion would be.
Not to be left behind Russia signed an agreement with Turkey early this month to build a nuclear power plant to generate electricity. Nuclear deal is part of multiple economic and trade deals signed between the two countries. Wall Street Journal quotes an analyst saying that among all the multi-billion dollar deals “The prize for Moscow appears to be the nuclear-plant deal.” The US may look “very carefully” at this deal too, but it’s obvious the nuclear bazaar is open for business now; NPT or no NPT.
Pakistan, with some justification, now demands the same reward that Indian got for its once perceived “rogue” behavior. Since Pakistan’s stocks are lower than India’s in the political stock exchange of America, this deal is not likely to come by any time soon. The sheer fact that nuclear stockpile gives you the courage to demand a favor instead of fearing punishment says a lot about the efficacy of NPT and international conscience keepers and law enforcers.
Pakistan’s successful quest for nuclear weapons tells the same story of on-again off-again enforcement of international laws that mock the piety and wisdom of those who pretend to be losing sleep over nuclear proliferation. In 1979 Pakistan was under sanctions for pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons program, and was also pilloried for having a military dictatorship that had executed an elected Prime Minister. Everything changed, virtually overnight, when the military forces of the Soviet Union moved into Afghanistan and the US saw a golden opportunity to bleed the Russian bear without putting a single US soldier’s life on the line. Military dictator became “defender of the free world” as President Reagan put it in his welcome address for the erstwhile pariah- Gen Ziaul Haq. The military regime pursued its nuclear ambition at a feverish pitch while the US looked the other way. By 1984 Pakistan had achieved weapon grade enrichment of uranium. There are reasons to believe that the US had pretty good idea of what their ally had been up to in the nuclear field.
Once the Soviet forces retreated from Afghanistan in 1988 the US turned its back on Pakistan and re-imposed sanctions on its ally for pursuing nuclear ambitions. Though it was known, by that time, that Pakistan’s nuclear program had reached an irreversible stage and the sanctions would do nothing to stop or reverse it.
In 1998 India conducts multiple nuclear tests and declares itself a nuclear weapon state. Pakistan conducts tit-for-tat nuclear tests and struts the stage of the nuclear haves claiming nuclear parity with India. Harsh economic and military sanctions are imposed and Pakistan is isolated diplomatically and brought to its knees economically. Just three years passed when the tragedy of 9/11 struck, and the US once again needed Pakistan and its military dictator, who had exiled an elected Prime Minister and practically abrogated the Constitution. Another military dictator becomes a trusted friend and nuclear Pakistan gets billions of dollars to fight “war on terror”.
Let’s have another hypothetical scenario. If Saddam Husain actually had weapons of mass destruction and the capability to deploy them, would “coalition of the willing” have dared launch its attack? Most probably the war mongers of the Bush Administration would have thought about the consequences more carefully if they knew they would face WMDs on the battlefield.
Iran and South Korea both are signatories of NPT and both have pursued clandestine nuclear programs. In 1982 South Korean scientists performed experiment in plutonium extraction. Under US pressure Korea stopped its program and in return got American nuclear reactor and financial assistance for civilian nuclear program. In 2004 it was revealed that South Korea continued to pursue its nuclear program; this time it took the uranium enrichment route. In 2000, Korean scientists enriched uranium to near weapon grade (up to 77%). Both the uranium and the plutonium incidents were not reported to IAEA until 2004. Thereafter IAEA launched an investigation into South Korea’s nuclear activities. It was determined that ROK had failed to report to IAEA as required. This non-compliance was treated as non-issue, however. The matter was never taken up for any possible punitive actions. After all South Koreans are our friends and they are facing a nuclear menace from North Korea. Now there are reports that South Korea is gearing up its resources to have a nuclear powered submarine. This ruffles no feathers, no news in the media, no high sounding condemnations, no threats, and no punitive action.
Iran, is signatory of NPT and has indulged in activities that it should have reported to IAEA. Iran has stretched the NPT provisions to the limit to assert its sovereign right to enrich uranium for ‘peaceful purposes’. Though there are strong parallels between Iran and ROK cases, yet no one seems to worry about Korea, while Iran is treated as evil incarnate, facing ever tougher economic sanctions, and threats of surgical airstrikes. This duplicity may not be visible to the American public but it’s very well known to those who think they are at the wrong end of the nuclear stick.
Then there is Israel’s huge nuclear arsenal, which, if you go by the media coverage in the West, and official response in these capitals it seems there are no WMD in Israel, and whatever there is, is of no concern to anyone. When Egypt tries to remind the NPT bigwigs about a long forgotten resolution that called for nuclear-free Middle East they are told you ‘are protesting too much’.
Power flows from the barrel of the gun, is a maxim that’s true about political power. It may not be true about social, religious, and charismatic power, but the enforcement of political will within state boundaries or inter-state relations is greatly dependent upon the perception of the coercive power of the enforcer. Whether it is law enforcement within a given community or mastery of the trade routes on the high seas, ultimate sanction behind all this is not morality but monopoly of the means of coercion, and violence.
Introduction of nuclear weapons is the most lethal development in human history since the invention of gunpowder. As was the case with gunpowder, no one is going to give up its nuclear capability for “a global public good of the highest order." There will always be reason for states to maintain monopoly of the means of violence and coercion, and to improve their lethality and effectiveness to assert their power against other players on the international scene. Nuclear arsenal being the most deadly and effective mean of self-assertion for states it will remain the most coveted weapon, no matter what say on the podium.
In order to achieve any meaningful result, and to make some progress in reaching the goal of a nuclear-free world, the review conference should try to reduce the ever widening moral gap in the NPT structure, stop being selective in the implementation of the law, and do not manipulate for short term gains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)