All about ‘talks’
Men, Matters & Memories

By M L Kotru

Talks on Sir Creek, talks on confidence building measures, talks on the nuclear issue .... talks, talks and more talks. Yes, there was what Pugwash-sponsored meeting in Kathmandu attended among others by some men from across the line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir, with assorted ring-masters from numerous sponsored track-two groups very much on exhibition.

That's not all. There are more talks scheduled to take place in the next few weeks, hopefully, climaxed by a meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and General Musharraf at the upcoming SAARC meeting. All this would normally give one the feeling that things are moving forward on the Indo-Pak peace front. You have only to take a look at the euphoria which ordinary Indians and Pakistanis put on show during those now familiar cross-border forays by well-meaning ordinary people.

Balance this against the alter rhetoric emanating from Islamabad which evidently must drawn identical response from New Delhi. You have the Pakistani Foreign Office spokesman taking umbrage at Defence Minister Pranab Mukherji's criticism of the US decision to open its armouries to the Pakistani military establishment. The Pak spokesman doesn't talk of military balance as between Indian and Pakistan nor parity as of yore; the Pakistani spokesman instead talks of the need for "symmetry" between the armed forces of the two countries.

He doesn't tell us why Pakistan should want high-tech surveillance planes, more and more sophisticated missiles and fighter aircraft. Instead he tells us that India is out on a shopping spree with a long shopping list of military ware including aircraft, submarines et al.

And here in New Delhi, the American Ambassador rather truthfully admits that there is no need for the Indians to always look through the Pakistani prism. US, he says, will do whatever is necessary to further its national interest. How true!

Think of this extract and one or two other ones from the officially published record of the 9/11 US National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States" ..... The other diplomatic route to get to Bin Laden in Afghanistan ran through Islamabad. In the summer before the embassy (Nairobi etc) bombings the State Department had been heavily focussed on rising tension between India and Pakistan and did not aggressively challenge Pakistan on Afghanistan and Bin Laden. But State Department counter-terrorism official wanted a stronger position; the Department's acting counter-terrorism coordinator advised the Secretary of State to designate Pakistan as a sponsor of terrorism, noting that despite high-level Pakistani assurances, the country's military intelligence service command continued activities in support of international terrorism by supporting attacks on civilian targets in Kashmir....." At another point the commission records that "according to (US) Ambassador Milam the bombings were a wake up call and he soon found himself working 45 to 50 percent of his time on the Taliban-Bin Laden portfolio. But Pakistan's military intelligence Service known as the ISID (Inter Services Intelligence Directorate) was the Taliban's primary patron, which made progress difficult...." at yet another place the Commission notes...... "If Bin Laden actually moved to Iraq (the presumption was that he may move there) his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be virtually impossible to find him. Better to get bin Laden in Afghanistan." The use of U-2 (spy) flights was ruled out because "it would, "in the words of the report, "need Pakistani approval and Pakistan intelligence is in bed with bin Laden and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign...." Armed with the knowledge, old, wily Osama will boogie to Baghdad....."

Recall for yourself Gen. Musharraf's initial assertions that bin Laden was in Afghanistan and that he may be moving across the Pak-Afghan border somewhere in the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan. Compare this with his latest TV interview in the US where he said that he has lost scent of Osama and nobody could be sure where he was. Add to this the second Bush Administration's determination to put "my good friend President Musharraf" to good use in the continuing campaign against terrorism. And Musharraf, the canny customer he is, has always described himself as an "ally" in the war against terrorism, something which he has been parroting ever since he tied his country to Bush's apron-strings.

The 9/11 Commission itself has ironically, pleaded for focussing attention on Pakistan to develop a promising stable and secure future. And the Republican dominated Congress has acted in quick time. It has urged via a proposed legislation that the US should over the long period help to ensure a promising, stable and secure Pakistan and should in particular provide assistance to encourage and to enable Pakistan to continue to improve its commitment to combating terrorism, to seek to resolve any outstanding difficulties with its neighbours and other countries in its region, to continue to make efforts to fully control its territory and borders, to progress towards becoming a more effective and participatory democracy....". The Congress also asks the President to transmit to it within 180 days of the enactment the proposed strategy for the future, long-term engagement of the US with Pakistan.

It does not matter to us whether Pakistan, as a sovereign State, should subject itself to such a far-reaching legislation - it covers educational reform, moderation etc as well - passed by another country, covering almost all aspects of (Pakistan's) life. What should worry us is the consequences such an enactment will have on the region. Taking the cue from proposed legislation the US has already announced a multi-billion bonanza to Pakistan in terms of sophisticated weaponry including spy planes etc and also for its economic development. The clause relating to US providing assistance to encourage and enable Pakistan to seek to resolve problems with it neighbours should however be of grave concern to India. Pakistanis will surely interpret the clause to mean that there is an assurance by the US to help them resolve the Kashmir issue in their favour and the US may thus unwittingly perhaps find itself involved which will of course be opposed by India. It could only make a solution more difficult to achieve and also add to the instransigence of the Pakistanis, signs of which are already available in the ascendancy of the hawkish Pak bureaucracy. It would unavoidably influence the direction of the on-going Indo-Pak dialogue.

Regime change in Saudi Arabia ?

By Sreedhar

The attack on the US Consulate in Jeddah on December 6 by unknown assailants indicates three thngs. First, from the version given by Saudi authorities the attackers are foreign nationals. If this is true, the spill over effects of US war on Iraq has started surfacing in the neighbouring countries. In fact, this is a point of concern to the international community as any unrest in Saudi Arabia may have serious effect on the international oil supplies. In addition, as the Custodians of Holy Places of Islam, Mecca and Medina, any abrupt change in the Saudi monarchy will have serious repercussions on the entire Islamic world.

Second, reports coming from Saudi capital Riyadh indicate that dissident elements against the ruling family have crept into the all walks of Government. According to unconfirmed reports, more than 40 percent of the Saudi armed forces are unhappy with the life style of the ruling family. An equal number among the intelligence agencies are sympathetic to the people like Osama bin Laden. One report even suggests that al-Qaida gets regular contributions from the Saudi intelligence agencies. It is difficult to assess the veracity of these statements. At the same time one should take cognizance of these reports along with Saudi participation in the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. Besides the frequency with which high value targets are being attacked in Saudi Arabia itself during the past one decade show that the resentment factor is increasing over the years; and has gained further momentum after Osama bin Laden came on the international scene.

Lastly it appears only partially true to the US claims that, they have managed to weaken the radical Islamic groups operating across the globe. In retrospect, radical Islamic groups operating in various countries appears to have come to the conclusion that if they managed to neutralise the US, like they did with the Soviet Union in 1980s, rsurgence of Islam will automatically happen. As a part of this strategy, the fight with the US now centred on the Islamic soil. A fillip was given to this silent war with the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Now the war is slowly spreading to the other countries in the Persian Gulf region. Further, people like Osma bin Laden are aware that if the crude oil supplies to the west from the Persian Gulf region were disrupted, they would automatically win the war with the US.

Some observers, however, believe that much of the unrest in Saudi Arabia during the past decade is the result of development in the Kingdom immediately after the Islamic Revolution in Iran in February 1979. In November 1979, Kabah, one of the holiest sites of Islam was seized by Juhayaman al-Otebi, an Islamic theology student and his 100 odd supporters. Fired with religious fervour, and armed with rifles, they smuggled themselves in to Kobah in coffins and launched one of the biggest uprisings in the Kingdom. Juhayman declared the pro-west Saudi rulers are corrupt, and called for banning of evils' such as radio, television and employment of women and announced that a new messiah had come.

Almost twenty-five years later, Juhayman's revolution still inspires radical Islamic groups across the Islamic world. ''Juhayman is considered as a kind of hero of al Qaida and other Jehadis'', said novelist and reform activist Turki-al-Hamad. Some commentators, however, feel that Juhayman's uprising may be more to local history echoing the 1930s uprising of Ikhwana (Muslim brotherhood) rebels against modern Saudi Arabia's founder King Abdul Aziz than to the international agenda of Osma bin Laden. But the language spoken by Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran and Juhayman of Saudi Arabia and now what al Qaida followers and its sympathizers are saying is one and the same the ruling family of Saudi Arabia is infidel.

These lead to one question. What are the prospects of a regime change in Saudi Arabia ? If one glance through the western literature it becomes clear, that under no circumstances the US and its allies will allow any radical Islamist groups hostile to them to come into power in Riyadh. The reason is simple. Saudi Arabia's crude oil wealth should not be controlled by any group, which may deny its access to the west. Therefore, if necessary the West will not hesistate to station troops on a permanent basis to protect the oil fields in the Kingdom. Or as some commentators have said, trifurcate Saudi Arabia and isolate oil fields and pipelines from the control of an anti west regime. One can get into any number of scenarios if such an event occurs. However, one cannot be sure of success to the west. Judging by the developments of the US invasion of Iraq, one can speculate that it is not going to be easy for the west to invade Saudi Arabia or tinker with its geographical boundaries.

The radical Islamic writings, however, feel that the regime cannot continue its position indefinitely. The economy has been mismanaged beyond comprehension, and all the macro level economic indicators like inflation, unemployment rate etc are on the rise. In addition people like Osama bin Laden and Saud Homoud al oteibi have emerged as charismatic leaders, providing leadership to the anti-monarchy movements. Their continued activities against the west and the ruling royal family show that they have sympathizers all around inside Saudi Arabia and outside in the Islamic world.

But the radicals' capacity so far is not a mass movement as in Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini. To convert al Qaida into a mass movement may take some more time to convert it into some more time. Therefore, uncertainty will loom large in Saudi Arabia and will take a mass movement. Even ten, as the anti-west sentiment is increasing at the popular level. The west cannot live comfortably in the desert Kingdom.- CNF