| War on Terror | |
| 11 May 2011, NewAgeIslam.Com |
| Did the US Serve Justice? | ||
| ||
| Did the US Serve Justice? | |
By Praful Bidwai May 07, 2011 Did the United States secure ‘justice’ for the 9/11 victims, as President Barack Obama claimed, by killing Osama bin Laden? The honest answer is no: the US accomplished retribution or revenge, not full justice. This is not to trivialise the importance of the elimination of the world’s most wanted criminal, or the painstaking intelligence-gathering effort that tracked Osama in Abbottabad. Least of all does this mean shedding tears for Osama. However, full justice would mean punishing the 9/11 culprits after conclusively establishing their guilt in a fair public trial. It would also demand humane redressal of the genuine grievances that jihadi terrorists exploit, which relate to the West’s project of hegemonic domination, its demonisation of Islam and Israel’s occupation of Palestine. The present explosion of triumphalist nationalism in the US is a far cry from this. The depiction of Liberty holding Osama’s severed head in one hand and the torch of freedom in the other is as revenge-driven as Al-Qaeda’s celebration of jihadi violence. Many Americans are revelling in an aggressive reaffirmation of the US’s military power and influence. That’s why the Republicans are lavishing praise upon Obama, who now seems certain to win his second term as president. Yet, the US’s post-9/11 anti-terror achievements are meagre. On September 12, 2001, Washington launched an unlimited Global War on Terror (GWoT). It began by invading Afghanistan. In 2003, it invaded Iraq after citing Al-Qaeda’s growing influence and the existence of weapons of mass destruction – a patent falsehood. GWoT then spread to the Horn of Africa and Southeast Asia. GWoT has caused an estimated 1.2 million civilian casualties in Iraq and another 20,000 in Afghanistan, besides 6,000 US military casualties (double the number of civilians killed in 9/11). The US has spent $1.3 trillion on GWoT. Since 9/11, there have been 13 major terrorist attacks in different countries, in which over 1,000 people died. Many of these were by groups other than Al-Qaeda. The jihadi ideology caught on, as did the idea that citizens of mighty states like the US can and should be slaughtered. Al-Qaeda has evolved into a decentralised ‘franchise’ organisation: there’s no unifying central command; its affiliates can act autonomously. Politically, the US’s 2003 decision to wage war against Iraq alienated its key allies. Even small countries like Cameroon, Angola and Guinea resisted heavy US pressure and refused to vote for war in the Security Council. Allies who supported President Bush lost domestic elections. Not least, the US response to 9/11 perverted the notion of justice. The US violated its own citizens’ civil liberties and resorted to torture. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay will remain abiding reminders of inhuman detention and extremely coercive interrogation. Washington also instigated ‘rendition’ of terror suspects to third countries which have scant regard for legality. The US bypassed its own courts and international crimes tribunals and branded terror suspects enemy ‘combatants’ who didn’t deserve regular trial. Bin Laden thus succeeded in negating some of the democratic achievements that Americans are (rightly) proud of, and in returning the US from modernity to the medieval culture of torture. GWoT, then, has extracted an exorbitant price. Yet, Obama declared victory after Operation Geronimo, grotesquely named after an American-Indian chief. This claim would have been less unconvincing had the US not conducted a targeted assassination, and instead lawfully detained Osama (who was unarmed), held him to account for unleashing terror, and punished him after a scrupulously fair trial. This would have highlighted Osama’s demonic ideology and excesses before the whole world, including millions of Muslims. President Obama, a Nobel peace laureate, boasted on May 1: “[W]e are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to.” The menacing potential for abuse of power contained in this is worrisome. Many would treat the US covert action in Abbottabad as legitimate because of the risk that the ISI would have alerted Osama if it got to know of the operation. Yet, it involved a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and penetration of spies into its territory. The extension of this logic to other countries could produce horrendous illegalities and human rights violations – witness the Nato invasion of Libya. Osama’s killing will weaken Al-Qaeda, which is already marginalised in the Arab world. The Arab Spring doesn’t derive its inspiration from global jihad against a universal enemy, but from an urge to depose domestic dictators. However, Al-Qaeda and its supporters haven’t been decisively defeated. They may still be capable of launching murderous attacks in Pakistan, and Mumbai-type operations against India. This should be a sobering thought. Osama’s killing has impelled some Indian hardliners to clamour for “taking out” Pakistan-based jihadi extremists like Hafiz Mohammed Saeed through “covert operations”. This is a counsel for adventurism and all-out war. But New Delhi has wisely decided to continue the dialogue process with Pakistan. The Abbottabad episode highlights numerous truths about Al-Qaeda and Pakistan. It’s inconceivable that Osama could have stayed for five to six years next door to the Pakistan Military Academy without the army/ISI’s knowledge and tacit support. That suggests complicity and unwillingness to conduct anti-terror operations sincerely. If the army/ISI was unaware of Osama’s hideout and the US operation, that would reflect poorly on its intelligence-gathering ability. If it was aware, that would suggest its acceptance of the US violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. At any rate, the Pakistan Army’s duplicity in running with the Al-Qaeda-Taliban hare and hunting with US hounds stands exposed. This has damaged Pakistan’s global image and weakened its bargaining power vis-à-vis the US. For many Americans, the Osama manhunt was GWoT’s principal rationale. Osama’s elimination will allow Obama to begin rapid troop withdrawal from Afghanistan in July. Before it withdraws, the US will try to cut a deal with the ‘moderate’ Taliban so they can share power in Afghanistan. Last year, the ISI showed its desperate determination to be part of any negotiation with the Taliban. It tracked down ‘moderate’ Taliban leader Mullah Baradar with the US’s technological support. But it kidnapped Baradar and sabotaged US plans to talk to him. A purely Taliban-based settlement involving the Pashtuns, only one of Afghanistan’s ethnic groups, won’t hold. What’s needed is a broad-based settlement, which also includes the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, endorsed by the regional powers, including Pakistan, India, Russia and Iran. This will require India to demand a regional approach, and Pakistan to accept it because of India’s legitimate historical ties with Afghanistan. Simultaneously, India must continue the dialogue process with Pakistan and strengthen its domestic pro-peace constituency which wants the army to be placed under civilian control and the ISI reined in. The first task entails that India take a fiercely independent foreign policy stance vis-à-vis the US, especially on Iran’s inclusion, which Washington will dogmatically oppose. The alternative is colluding with Washington and worsening the mess in Afghanistan. Extremist forces will thrive in this and turn Afghanistan into a cauldron of unending violence, in which jihadis can threaten India’s (and Pakistan’s) security. The Afghanistan challenge will test India’s diplomacy. India must evolve a mature, morally clear and bold policy. The security, stability and democratic evolution of the northwestern part of South Asia are at stake. India cannot afford to fail this test. Source: The News International, Pakistan URL: http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamWarOnTerror_1.aspx?ArticleID=4616
|
10:47 PM
Moderate Islamist here
0 comments:
Post a Comment