|
Consolidating Occupation by Abid Ullah Jan Note the difference. The news used to be: "FBI officials were also accompanying the raiding party." The news to day is: "Officials of Pakistan secret agencies were also accompanying their FBI counterparts."[1] This is how invisible occupations work for the empire, without going to war, without going around the UN Security Council, without provoking millions in protests around the world and without going through the post-war mess. Just have a Karazi-like figure, run the country and that figurehead will "also accompany" the US team in running the country. Those who still doubt that Pakistan is as occupied as Afghanistan and Iraq, must read another story on the front page of the same issue of The Nation to see how funds are now being showered on the same dictator with whom the US could not do "business as usual." Now that he moved from the status of a "dictator" to "viceroy" another kind of business unusual is unveiling before our eyes. Interestingly, a rare $ 4 billion package of financial assistance is likely to be negotiated with him during his forthcoming visit to Washington.[2] The literal meaning of occupation is taking or maintaining possession of a country by military conquest. However, the line between independence and occupation is getting finer with each passing day in the 21st century. The cost of weakness is now an occupation without a military conquest. Pakistan has, unfortunately, become the first victim of this new kind of occupation – a model of “failed state” perfectly controlled from outside with curtailed sovereignty and limited freedoms. Despite our government’s wholehearted sacrifice of all principles of justice and norms of independent states, American analysts, such as Leon T. Hadar of Cato Institute, consider Pakistan “with its dictatorship and failed economy” a “reluctant Partner” and a “potential long term adversary.”[3] Therefore, occupation is a must and here we are: fully occupied. Like any other occupied territory, dictatorship is in full swing in Pakistan. Hundreds of people, pointed out by the intelligence of occupation forces, are rounded up on a daily basis and our agencies simply “accompany them,” might be only as interpreters. Illegal detentions and extraditions are on the rise. More than a dozen non-government organisations with any link to Muslim countries, or Arabic words in its names, have been closed down. Newspapers report that guns and “computers have been recovered” from these organisations, as if computers have suddenly become illegal commodities. Hundreds of additional FBI and CIA agents are on their way to Pakistan to join the thousands of foreign agents who are already spying on occupied people. There are no signs of independence at all. We cannot prepare our budgets without an approval from international lending agencies. We cannot conduct any investigation without assistance from FBI agents. Our agencies cannot operate any longer, except in coordination with FBI. Until last year, we had to detain every person from the Middle East as a potential terrorist and it was up to the US agencies to decide their fate. Now, the US agents lead our agencies into the arrest of anyone on their list. The morbid dread of Al-Qaeda is being used to crackdown on religion and to further reduce our freedoms as citizens of an independent state. There is no open discussion on any aspect of the ever-intensifying occupation. We have accepted it as a daily routine. We are ensuring American "strategic interests" in everything we do, from implementation of American directions on religious institutions to spying on citizens and banning everything that may promote the spiritual message of Islam. The government officials work round the clock to ensure the interpretation of Pakistan’s occupation as crisis management. It is rather becoming a cause of the future crisis. Al-Qaeda’s threat has been blown out of proportion to intensify occupation in what a senior British diplomat Robert Cooper calls "failed states in the post-modern era". Full text of Cooper’s essay appeared in The Observer on April 07, 2002. The main characteristics of such occupations described by Cooper are: the breaking down of the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs of the occupied states; “mutual” interference in domestic affairs and “mutual” surveillance (the word “mutual” is used to deceive the weak as Pakistan cannot even imagine interference in domestic affairs of the US, let alone surveillance); and the growing irrelevance of borders when comes to safeguarding interest of the strong. In 21st century occupations, there are no security threats in the traditional sense; that is to say, the powerful do not consider invading the weak. Going to war is rather a sign of policy failure. Mr. Cooper elaborates: “The challenge to the post-modern world is to get used to the idea of double standards. Among ourselves, we operate on the basis of laws and open cooperative security. But when dealing with more old-fashioned kinds of states outside the post-modern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era - force, pre-emptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the nineteenth century world of every state for itself. Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle.” So the laws of jungle are being applied in occupied states like Pakistan and Afghanistan. This new form of occupation is acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. In the western eyes it is an occupation that “aims to bring order and organisation” but which rests today on the voluntary principle or people like Musharraf coming forward and offering services. If there were no Musharrafs and Mubaraks, it is not just soldiers that come from the international community; it is police, judges, prison officers, central bankers and others. Kosova is an example where elections are organised and monitored by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Local police are financed and trained by the UN. As auxiliaries to this effort - in many areas indispensable to it - are over a hundred NGOs. We must debate and resist occupation of Pakistan under the pretext of dismantling Al-Qaeda’s network. What kind of a clearinghouse has Osama created for terrorist adventures that is so hard to dismantle? It seems Al-Qaeda and Osama have become the one-size-fits-all scapegoat for every action that all the world's aggrieved peoples take against America. And we might be tempted to believe this, if it weren't for the fact that some of America's own citizens, such as Timothy McVeigh and Theodore Kaczynski, have proved that one need not be a Muslim to perform such acts of terror. Freedom comes with a heavy price tag. Under British occupation, Benjamin Franklin observed in 1755 that those “who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." You don't abandon the rule of law, principles of justice and hard won independence simply because America is angry. Pakistan is strong enough at least to handle its internal affairs within the precious boundaries of the law and the abandoned Constitution. If new rules are needed for dignified interaction with the super-power or detention and extradition of suspects, then by all means establish new rules. But you don't leave yourself at the mercy of American will without any policy or principles. Of what use is our assistance in the “war on terrorism” if it puts our very freedoms and independence at stake. Our assistance should not become cooperation for occupation. If we are not defending our freedom, then we are just blowing stale smoke rings of hypocrisy when we raise our hand and pledge to defend sovereignty and independence of the “Islamic” Republic of Pakistan. Concluded June 13, 2003 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] “Two al-Qaeda suspects arrested in City,” The Nation, Pakistan, Front Page, June 13, 2003. See: http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/June-2003/13/main/top13.asp [2] Absar Alam, “$4b US assistance likely,” The Nation, Pakistan, Front Page, June 13, 2003. http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/June-2003/13/main/top3.asp [3] Policy Analysis, No 436, May 8, 2002.
|