Salahuddin
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 239
- Reaction score
- 0
Abid Ullah Jan
June 13, 2003
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 figure head 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 between Pakistan and the United States during the forthcoming visit of President General Pervez Musharraf to Washington. (2)
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 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 of 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 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 proportions 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.
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 Osama has 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 your self at the mercy of American will without any policy and 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.
Dealing Occupation
The solution is to the on going non-military occupation of countries such as Pakistan is to search for a non-violent form of conflict, separation between genuine points of difference and simplistic and superficial fears and accusations, embarking on a historic dialogue to guarantee a positive interaction that stops the undue intervention in the internal and external affairs of Pakistan out of a fear of confrontation collision between the Muslims and the West.
It is time to call an end to the destructive infringement of Pakistan's sovereignty -- a permanent break from the Western interference that would give us time to regain our energy, concentrate on putting our house in order, and seriously consider ways to build on our strengths. Supporting a dictator only to safeguard pro-US policies, no matter how these may destabilise the country and repress the nation, would have far destructive consequences in the long-term than allowing people to govern themselves with their own representatives, working under their own set of rules and regulations. Should we succeed in achieving such a break from the invisible occupation by the "international community" and exploit it in the manner outlined, that in itself would be a great achievement for the West in winning our hearts and minds.
How can this break come about? Who will negotiate it, and what will the agenda be? What is the desirable outcome? What we need here is a joint negotiated effort by Islamic scholars, the un-sold leaders and journalists for chalking out a way to assert a common Islamic identity (socio-politically) and the concept of an Islamic entity (institutionally and politically). Such an effort should make the leaders of Muslim countries realise that their survival is not in following external dictates for curtailing our freedoms and uprooting our identity but in serving their own people according to the principles of their faith.
Negotiations may be direct or indirect. In the latter case, the Pakistanis first come up with a balanced common position regarding the issues at hand, and then stick to it. This effort must include groups and individuals from all Muslim countries and the process of occupation is not limited to Pakistan alone. If the people in the West accept our position, the negotiating process would have fulfilled its goals. And would have pressure groups right in the place where policies for our occupation are chalked out.
Should our point of view is rejected, we can then ignore this rejection and act according to what we agree even if this common Muslim position is in contravention of international resolutions. If there can be a European Union and NATO, there can also be an Islamic Union and Islamic Defence Organisation to protect our sovereignty.
PARTNERS
In all cases, however, the Muslims have to keep in mind that efforts are underway to divide Muslim thought. This is called fanning a "war within Islam." We must negotiate with each other in order to arrive at a balanced position on the points of conflict with our own rulers and outside powers that sponsor them. Discussions at the mailing lists would not help much. The appropriate venue for negotiations such as these is the establishment of think tanks in all the Muslims countries and then meetings of their representatives in international meetings and seminars. Once consensus is achieved, the Muslims can then deputize the imminent scholars and leaders to negotiate the issues with the "international community" on behalf of the Muslims.
The agenda for the negotiations should be drawn up such that practical results are achieved within a reasonable time frame. For example, the so-called dialogue of civilizations should be excluded and areas or factors that constitute direct interference in the internal and external affairs, or activities that directly undermine our sovereignty should be included.
On the other hand, since the problems between the Muslims and the US are so many, they can be subdivided and dealt with successively, starting with the most pressing issues related to our sovereignty and independence. Needless to say, the first of such issues to be tabled should be the urgent ones of the Muslim states under Western sponsored tyrannical regimes and their impact on overall relations with the West.
The term "international community" refers to the US and its allies. The US, UK and France alone would suffice, the logic being that the Muslims do not have a real quarrel with the other members of the Western communtiy. If the Muslims come to a negotiated arrangement with these parties, then the objective would automatically be achieved, viz. correcting the Western position towards Islam as a whole.
OUTCOME
The desired outcome of this process is breaking the chains of domination and occupation -- the smoothing out of the relations between these presently invisibly occupied Muslim states and the "international community," and the creation of a new climate of international relations for the Muslim countries and their wretched population.
The Muslims must come up with practical and tangible suggestions regarding the problems they face. Nevertheless, the mere idea of a joint Islamic negotiating position may be enough to influence the others to moderate their stance.
To take a start, we must begin at home. We need to debate the ways in which we are fully albeit indirectly occupied and come up with solutions for course correction in time.
We may never see an end to occupation and global apartheid as long as we do not force our Muslim leaders to stand up against injustice and Western double standards. It is highly unlikely that 52 countries would unanimously say one thing and US would do another. The US would never continue following the course once travelled by Hitler, provided we have the courage to tell the whole truth.
June 13, 2003
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 figure head 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 between Pakistan and the United States during the forthcoming visit of President General Pervez Musharraf to Washington. (2)
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 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 of 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 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 proportions 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.
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 Osama has 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 your self at the mercy of American will without any policy and 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.
Dealing Occupation
The solution is to the on going non-military occupation of countries such as Pakistan is to search for a non-violent form of conflict, separation between genuine points of difference and simplistic and superficial fears and accusations, embarking on a historic dialogue to guarantee a positive interaction that stops the undue intervention in the internal and external affairs of Pakistan out of a fear of confrontation collision between the Muslims and the West.
It is time to call an end to the destructive infringement of Pakistan's sovereignty -- a permanent break from the Western interference that would give us time to regain our energy, concentrate on putting our house in order, and seriously consider ways to build on our strengths. Supporting a dictator only to safeguard pro-US policies, no matter how these may destabilise the country and repress the nation, would have far destructive consequences in the long-term than allowing people to govern themselves with their own representatives, working under their own set of rules and regulations. Should we succeed in achieving such a break from the invisible occupation by the "international community" and exploit it in the manner outlined, that in itself would be a great achievement for the West in winning our hearts and minds.
How can this break come about? Who will negotiate it, and what will the agenda be? What is the desirable outcome? What we need here is a joint negotiated effort by Islamic scholars, the un-sold leaders and journalists for chalking out a way to assert a common Islamic identity (socio-politically) and the concept of an Islamic entity (institutionally and politically). Such an effort should make the leaders of Muslim countries realise that their survival is not in following external dictates for curtailing our freedoms and uprooting our identity but in serving their own people according to the principles of their faith.
Negotiations may be direct or indirect. In the latter case, the Pakistanis first come up with a balanced common position regarding the issues at hand, and then stick to it. This effort must include groups and individuals from all Muslim countries and the process of occupation is not limited to Pakistan alone. If the people in the West accept our position, the negotiating process would have fulfilled its goals. And would have pressure groups right in the place where policies for our occupation are chalked out.
Should our point of view is rejected, we can then ignore this rejection and act according to what we agree even if this common Muslim position is in contravention of international resolutions. If there can be a European Union and NATO, there can also be an Islamic Union and Islamic Defence Organisation to protect our sovereignty.
PARTNERS
In all cases, however, the Muslims have to keep in mind that efforts are underway to divide Muslim thought. This is called fanning a "war within Islam." We must negotiate with each other in order to arrive at a balanced position on the points of conflict with our own rulers and outside powers that sponsor them. Discussions at the mailing lists would not help much. The appropriate venue for negotiations such as these is the establishment of think tanks in all the Muslims countries and then meetings of their representatives in international meetings and seminars. Once consensus is achieved, the Muslims can then deputize the imminent scholars and leaders to negotiate the issues with the "international community" on behalf of the Muslims.
The agenda for the negotiations should be drawn up such that practical results are achieved within a reasonable time frame. For example, the so-called dialogue of civilizations should be excluded and areas or factors that constitute direct interference in the internal and external affairs, or activities that directly undermine our sovereignty should be included.
On the other hand, since the problems between the Muslims and the US are so many, they can be subdivided and dealt with successively, starting with the most pressing issues related to our sovereignty and independence. Needless to say, the first of such issues to be tabled should be the urgent ones of the Muslim states under Western sponsored tyrannical regimes and their impact on overall relations with the West.
The term "international community" refers to the US and its allies. The US, UK and France alone would suffice, the logic being that the Muslims do not have a real quarrel with the other members of the Western communtiy. If the Muslims come to a negotiated arrangement with these parties, then the objective would automatically be achieved, viz. correcting the Western position towards Islam as a whole.
OUTCOME
The desired outcome of this process is breaking the chains of domination and occupation -- the smoothing out of the relations between these presently invisibly occupied Muslim states and the "international community," and the creation of a new climate of international relations for the Muslim countries and their wretched population.
The Muslims must come up with practical and tangible suggestions regarding the problems they face. Nevertheless, the mere idea of a joint Islamic negotiating position may be enough to influence the others to moderate their stance.
To take a start, we must begin at home. We need to debate the ways in which we are fully albeit indirectly occupied and come up with solutions for course correction in time.
We may never see an end to occupation and global apartheid as long as we do not force our Muslim leaders to stand up against injustice and Western double standards. It is highly unlikely that 52 countries would unanimously say one thing and US would do another. The US would never continue following the course once travelled by Hitler, provided we have the courage to tell the whole truth.
