by Shireen M Mazari
Clearly, the rules of international politics have altered drastically since 9/11 - when those who saw themselves as more equal than others decided to assert this inequality in an overt and forceful manner. Taking the USA’s lead, countries like Israel and India followed suit. Of course, while many Muslim states may have felt spiritually superior, 9/11 sent them all into a chasm of self-doubt and defensiveness - and there they continue to remain by and large.
Anyhow, in the age of pre-emptive intervention for the US and its core allies like Israel and India, old norms that restrained international behaviour have been cast aside. Hence, we have seen the emergence of a new norm - that of political assassinations - which states like Israel and the US have claimed for themselves. When Israel assassinated Hamas founder Shaikh Ahmad Yasin, the world moved to condemn this act through a UN Security Council resolution but the US vetoed the effort. This made it clear that the US had given new sanction to this new norm of state behaviour - political assassinations. Soon after, the US itself declared its intent of killing or arresting Iraqi Shia leader, Moqtada al-Sadr. While they still await the opportune moment, the Israelis carried out their next assassination - that of Shaikh Yasin’s successor - Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi - on April 17. And, again, the US failed to condemn this murder.
But this does not mean that all states can act with such impunity. But what is there to prevent all states from conducting assassinations now that the US has given such a strong green signal to the Israelis - as well as declaring their own intent of undertaking such acts in Iraq? Not that, such assassinations are new. State intelligence agencies have made this part of their agendas for centuries - and the US CIA has a record of assassinations of political leaders across the globe. But no state overtly professed such a policy, till now. So assassinations have been made kosher by the state of Israel and the US.
Nor is this all. Not only has the US sanctioned assassinations by the state of Israel, it has also sought to legitimise Israeli backtracking on UN and other commitments on the issue of Palestine. Now Sharon has produced a new plan, which clearly contravenes internationally sanctioned commitments, which seeks to create Israeli-supervised ghettos for Palestinians in the Gaza and the West Bank! There is little mention of statehood or of the fate of Jerusalem - while Israel has clearly refused to allow for any return of Palestinian refugees. The so-called Gaza withdrawal is a cruel joke - and not only on account of the settlements - on the Palestinians, with Israel retaining exclusive control of the Gaza Strip airspace and exercising its right to continue conducting military operations in the sea. The fate of the West bank is similar.
While the rest of the world has seen the Israeli design for what it is, the Bush Administration has approved this new plan - contrary to all international agreements and norms. But then the post-9/11 US holds little respect for international norms - as can be seen in the US invasion of Iraq and the Guantanamo Bay captives’ issue. But the real tragedy is that the Bush Administration has managed to drag allies like Britain into its new ominous designs. It was truly a pathetic sight to see Blair fall in line on the Sharon plan at the White House Press Conference with Bush. Little did the British know that their withdrawal East of Suez would eventually bring them to this!
But back to the destruction of old norms of international behaviour being undertaken by Mr Bush and his core allies. Even the basics of diplomatic courtesy, which sustain interstate behaviour especially through crises, are being abandoned when it comes to US diplomats dealing with Muslim states. US State Department pronouncements against Pakistan are one of the clearest reflections of this new approach. A recent example was the State Department spokesman, Richard Boucher, making a pronouncement of a sub judice matter in Pakistan - the trial of Javed Hashmi - given that an appeal is in process. But the irony is the US being concerned about the "closed nature of the proceedings" and calling upon Pakistan "to administer justice in a fair and transparent manner in accordance with its own laws and international norms." Ha! Which international norms is the US thinking of, given how it has flouted all the prevailing norms in the manner in which it is treating its Guantanamo Bay captives. In the case of these captives, there is also no proceeding to speak of - closed or open. So the US is hardly in a position - in moral and political terms though it has military might - to hold the high moral ground of protest to other states.
Nor is the Boucher statement a one-off as far as Pakistan is concerned. The US ambassador in Kabul, Mr Khalilzad, seems to have made it a part of his daily catharsis to "malicious" (can there be a more aptly descriptive word for his histrionics?) about Pakistan in the most undiplomatic manner. Given that he is suffering from ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), he really should be given some quick remedial treatment lest he be put away on disability allowance. Incidentally, our own Foreign Office spokesman did us proud on the issue on the April 19 briefing - he has understood Khalilzad well! Perhaps a new spring fever has managed to filter through the Sherazade’s bureaucratic corridors!
But the problem is that the US ambassador in Kabul has official backing for his tirades or he would have been censured by his own government much earlier. Instead, he continues to direct the US policy on Afghanistan and to advise President Karzai on all issues from his daily routine to more macro issues - if a recent story by Amy Waldman, "In Afghanistan, US envoy sits in seat of power", reprinted in The News (April 20), is to be believed. So one can assume that this is part of the new approach of the US towards Muslim states! Use them and abuse them while they still reel under the guilt - quite misplaced in my view - of 9/11.
Pakistan needs to be clear about these new norms that are evolving, especially since it is a frontline state in the US-led war on terrorism in Afghanistan - and may soon be compelled to send forces to Iraq. The latter would be a grave mistake unless the US withdraws militarily from Iraq and hands over to a UN force under UN command. Otherwise, how will Pakistan deal with the new US policy of assassinations - especially the threatened one of al-Sadr? Despite our rightful disillusionment with Muslim states, would we be able to enter a campaign against the Muslims of Iraq - merely because they oppose US occupation? Pakistan still arouses strong sentiment amongst Muslim civil societies/people, and Pakistanis also feel strongly for other Muslim people - as opposed to governments - and this is certainly not the time to undermine this sentiment and commitment, nor is defence of the US invasion of Iraq the right cause. Already, precious Pakistani blood is being spilt in the war on terror along the Durand Line.
Nor is this all. The Bush acceptance of the Sharon plan on Palestine should give us a sense of foreboding. Given the new Indo-US strategic partnership, India may also present a plan for the settlement of Kashmir focussing on the status quo - already they are fencing the LoC a la Israeli style. And, in the case of India whomsoever is the US president will probably give his support, since the US is least interested in a just resolution of Kashmir. Their concern is only with the struggle on the ground, which has prevented the dispute from being frozen in time - as it was till 1989. After all, we should learn a lesson from the case of Hillary Clinton who, despite the affection lavished on her by Pakistan, returned campaign contributions from a Pakistani source and has now thrown in her lot with the Indian lobby.
The only way to deal with the new norms is to maintain favourable positions on the ground and a psychological strength in oneself. The old rules of the game are on their way out, the new ones are just coming into play - in between anarchy is taking over and there is space for manoeuvre if we are prepared psychologically.
Tailpiece: Did you know the difference between assassination and murder? According to the Oxford Reference Dictionary, murder is the "intentional and unlawful killing of one person by another" (it does not have to be by violent means); assassination refers to killing ‘an important person’ by "violent means usually for political or religious motives." So, while murder may remain unlawful in most societies, assassinations will soon become kosher worldwide, if the new trend catches on! God help us all!
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/apr2004-daily/21-04-2004/oped/o3.htm
Author
