Who got what in Saddam?

By Dr. R. L. Bhat

We got him", said Paul Bremer the US head of the republic of Iraq. That republic used to have a head of its own till this year. This year, after a year-long campaign that head lies in the custody of the US forces. So Bremer can say with much satisfaction that they ‘got him’, but the question as to who got what is still begging answer. The US president and the British premier have linked it to peace in Iraq. That may be another of ‘objectives’ that could be possibly eased, if not achieved, in the capture of the bearded man who straddled the gulf scene for most of the last three decades as the monarch of much that he saw. The celebrations that broke out in Iraq at the news of Saddam’s capture may also point to that, though it is hard to hold that this would be the end of the Iraqis’ woes. And there, probably, lies the rub in all this sweet muttering that the ‘US-coalition’ is trying to rub upon the world. Iraqis. Yes, the Iraqis! Though for most of this year USA has been telling the world that it went there for the Iraqi people, that is just what it didn’t do. Today Iraqis may have been finally ‘liberated’ from the fear and Saddam-psychosis, but was that the primary aim of the American invasion there.

If it wasn’t the aim, can it justifiably be said that the ‘end’ has been achieved? America may have once stood for the liberation and happiness. Today it is an imperial power more imperious that the original Empire of England could ever become. Remember, Roosevelt did talk to Churchill about freeing India in the early years of World War II (though the rebuke he received discouraged any further talking to by America in the matter). Can Blair-or anybody else, for that matter-talk with a similar intent and inflection to the president of the greatest democracy? Could the world leaders, who are ‘rejoicing’ at capture of Saddam today, temper Bushman-tempers once he had settled on "getting Saddam"? Today America has ‘got him’ but the world can not say that it has been done with any pious intent, any good counsel, or even as a considered objective. So what is the world rejoicing at? Probably, at the prospect of having a less-tense George Bush breathing down its neck. Probably, at the opportunities for Iraq-contracts that a less-under-siege America may allow other western countries.

The other day The New York Times was horrifying its readers at the possibility of Howard Dean getting to be the next American president. With Dean getting closer to Democratic Party nomination that prospect had gained much relevance. It may be good for Americans to have George Bush for the next president. And if that is something for the world to celebrate, then it may have a cause to rejoice at the capture of Saddam Hussein. That event has greatly improved the chances of Bush Junior retaining the White House for another term. That could be a reason why France’s Chirac was brightly welcoming the capture and Germany was ‘effusive’ in its congratulations to Washington. But that brightness and effusiveness is for the French and the Germans who hope to ingratiate themselves to USA for a slice of the Iraq cake. It is not for the Iraqis. Iraqis may get to benefit indirectly, may even come to see better days, if the Al Qaidaic hordes give up their growing hold there, that is! But Iraqis were not the primary objective before. They aren’t the prime beneficiaries now when their tormentor of three decades in securely held.

Yes, Saddam was a tormentor of these hapless people. He was a dictator. But there are other tormentors. There are other dictators. None, neither USA nor any other democracy-conscious nation talks of those dictators. The Commonwealth at its recent summit did keep Pakistan suspended for another term, but it was mainly on Indian insistence. And even in that summit there were dictators sitting as the honored summiteers. India talked of Pakistan but did not think it expedient to talk of others. Other countries, apparently, had no intention of pointing to those dictatorships. Nor does UNO talk of the legions of dictators straddling the world it ‘unites’. There are dozens upon dozens of nations in Asia, Africa and America whose record in human rights the Amnesty keeps on decrying. There is the Chinese establishment moving in and out of the favor depending upon the access and concessions it grants to USA. There is Korea. There are the monarchies in Arabia who won’t let their people hear of democracy. There are countless nations in the African continent. There are millions upon millions of people living under dictatorships; they are being tormented and treated as feudal chattel in this twenty-first century without any knights in White Houses or Downing Streets, or anywhere else, speaking of them, much less setting out to wage wars to free them.

Short months ago, the world could not get the freedom-loving American Bush to move to Liberia in Africa even though it beseeched it hard. The same Bush fought the whole world to ‘get Saddam’. He has got him now but what is that to the world? Saddam was bad. His sons were worse. The regime he headed was a plague. But that was not why America went to get him. That was not the issue. Iraqis needed to be redeemed but that did not move USA. The fundamentalist-terrorists needed to be tackled. They need to be tracked and caught. But they are not there in Iraq. At least, they were not there when America went to get Saddam. Getting Saddam does not mean that America has got this terrorism or any other terrorism by the scruff. The world is as bad, as worse off, as risky a place as it was when Saddam was heading Iraq or hiding there. It may not seem expedient for USA or other nations to get a grip upon the baddies. But the world would continue to be tormented, plagued and perverted so long as the real enemies remain at large.

India-Pak peace process

By Dr Golam Yazdani

The ongoing peace movement between India and Pakistan will certainly frustrate those who have thrived on terrorism in the name of Islam or some other specious arguments. Hizbul Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Mohammad which was renamed itself as Khaddamul Islam, Jamaat-e-Islami and their patrons in the establishment are all upset.

Jamaat-e-Islami Chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed has described Pakistani Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali's unilateral ceasefire call on November 23 as a reflection of defeatism in the present Government. He said India would use Jamali's announcement as a propaganda weapon and a proof of Pakistan's involvement in terrorism and aggression (in Kashmir).

The Jamaat has benefitted the most from Islamabad's policy of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan and Kashmir. The Soviet entry into Afghanistan in December 1979 proved as a jackpot for this party. Gen. Zia-ul-Haq, who was described as a nephew of Jamaat's then chief Tufail Mohammad, allowed only this party to travel abroad to collect funds for Afghan refugees who had been flocking into Pakistan. It was said Jamaat's leaders saw the inside of an aeroplane for the first time then. Awami National Party's chief then Khan Abdul Wali Khan said the Jamaati leaders had suddenly become very rich. They built palatial houses and bought expensive cars. Later, then Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani came to Pakistan and charged that Jamaati leaders had pocked funds they collected in the name of Afghan refugees.

But such charges didn't seem to bother the Jamaat: soon after the Soviets pulled out from Afghanistan, it turned its attention to Kashmir where the ISI first funded JKLF to start militancy in the name of independence in 1989. Once the militancy picked up, the ISI dropped the JKLF and assigned the Jamaat a major role to change the direction of militancy from independence to pro-Pakistan insurgency in the name of Islam. The Jamaat used Hizbul Mujahideen to carry out this assignment with the help of unlimited funds, weapons and ideological literature supplied by the ISI. Thus, the Jamaat leaders ensured that the sources of their money and power continued beyond the Afghan war.

The Hizbul Mujahideen has rejected the ceasefire and threatened to continue its terrorist activities. It says it is not bound by the truce. Similarly, Lashkar-e-Toiba chief Hafiz Mohd. Saeed told Eid congregation in Lahore: "we will continue jehad without any fear or pressure and will not stop it on the asking of anybody.....Jehad is inevitable for the glory of Islam. The jehad process is continuing in Kashmir...." He made this speech after a few hours of the ceasefire having come into effect.

These jehadi groups, who subsist on ISI's funding cannot make these noises unless assured of continued Government support. According to "Pakistan facts" last month, the relations between the Army/ISI and Jehadis are so deep rooted that peace overtures between India and Pakistan cannot easily shake them. In an article," Pakistan India: Same Games New Rules," Syed Saleem Shahzad writes about his first hand observations in occupied Kashmir camps. He writes - his observations confirm that the jehadi outfits are in fact para-military troops. Each unit has a commander who reports to an army officer. Each jehadi commander is given funds and a brief to devise a strategy for his unit's combat operations. The commanders have laptop computers in which they store their data, from which they generate summaries of their operations for their military officers. The summaries include targets, operations and results. The jehadi commanders and army field officers always coordinate their efforts. Pro-jehadi clerics, like Mufti Nizamuddin Shamzai, are used to deliver sermons, and they are not allowed to utter a single word more than the topic on which they have been told to speak."

This article examines the possible life span of the current ceasefire that came into effect on the mid-night of November 25-26. The author's assessment is that it may not last very long because of the relationship between the army and jehadis. They are the brainchild of Gen. Zia-ul-Haq and a part of ISI's operations. According to the writer of this article, "just recently, a new recruitment campaign for militants - to be used in cross-border raids into Indian administered Kashmir - was started in all big cities. And militant organizations were given huge funds to mobiles their activists and attract new recruits. "And, it is said, President General Pervez Musharraf held meetings with jehadi leaders in which he assured them that he supported jehad in Kashmir with his heart and soul."

Thus, it is clear that Qazi Hussain Ahmed and the leaders of Hizbul Mujahideen Lashkar-e-Toiba were not speaking out of turn when they rejected the ceasefire. Obviously they did so at the behest of their patrons in the Army/ISI and for embarrassing Prime Minister Zaffallah Khan Jamali. These leaders should realise that the recent move by India and Pakistan to promote better relations has undoubtedly created better environment in the Valley. They should understand the ground relations as the Kashmiris are fed up with violence and want to live peacefully. They should understand that gun has no role to play now in the Kashmir crisis.