& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

US security concerns and the Muslim world

KAZI ANWARUL MASUD
THERE is a certain degree of unease in many parts of the world after the Iraq war. This unease is more pronouncedly felt in the Muslim world than elsewhere. Despite the fact that some of the Arab neighbours of Iraq, may have heaved a sigh of relief at the disappearance of Saddam Hussein from the global scene, the blatant illegality of Iraq war and the use of naked force without global consent has put many in the world in a quandary. These parts of the world would have been happier if the Anglo-US use of force, aided and abetted by some countries of the old and new Europe, could have some semblance of Kantian moral imperative backing their military endeavour in an otherwise seemingly Hobbesian world of strife. The promise of Americans as "liberators" has quickly turned into the reality of US troops as "occupiers" in Iraq in the eyes of most Iraqis and that of many countries of the world. The argument that number of US and British troops are being killed by a handful of people still loyal to Saddam Hussein is getting less and less convincing even to the erstwhile Iraqi dissidents who while expressing their eternal gratitude to President Bush and Prime Minister Blair for getting rid of Saddam Hussein are insistent that the governance of Iraq should be handed over to the Iraqis without further delay.
Americans are perplexed and angry over this apparent "ingratitude" of the Iraqis that they are not appreciative of the immense risk taken by them in causing destabilisation of the international political construct familiar to the people of the world since the second world war; in putting on line the unwavering trust of the international community in the impeccable moral virtues and values possessed by the US; the financial cost the US may be asked to bear for the reconstruction of Iraq; and the political cost of fracturing the transatlantic alliance. Americans historically have a positive view of occupation. The US occupation of Germany and Japan after the Second World War helped transform both into world economies. The Muslim world has the experiences of Israeli occupation of Arab territories which conjures up images of genocidal brutality by Israel meted out to unarmed civilians in the occupied lands. Former Under Secretary of State for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy Charlotte Beers told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee early this year of the "frighteningly wide" gap between how America sees itself and how the rest of the world sees America.
Regarding the Muslim world Charlotte Beers told FRC that "millions of ordinary people have gravely distorted but carefully cultivated images of us -- images so negative, so weird, so hostile that I can assure you a young generation of terrorists are being created". This failure of the American public diplomacy in trying " to do a better job of telling our story" in the words of President Bush could be due to stylistic difference (American penchant for speaking straight as
opposed to Muslim perception of direct talks as being confrontational and threatening to its collective social fabric) as to no less Muslim world's valid perception of monocentric policy of favouring Israel to the total disregard of the injustice meted out daily to the Arabs , in particular to the Palestinians (American Public Diplomacy in the Arab World- June 2003-R.S.Zaharna, American University).
It is now universally recognised that the tragic events of nine-eleven have decidedly impacted upon US policy on war on terrorism. The import of the nine-eleven events was perhaps no less significant than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour which finally helped the decision of President Roosevelt to take America into the war against Nazism and Fascism. A direct result of the September eleven terrorist attacks was the dislodgement of the Taliban from Afghanistan, a war which the US waged from high moral ground , in which NATO joined hands though Afghanistan was "out of the area", in which the international community (including the entire Muslim world) extended its full support to the US military actions. This complete fusion of support for the US actions was possible because of the odious nature of the Taliban regime and the determination of the international community to deny terrorists any pretext to justify their heinous crime in the name of religion or politics. One may recall that the Organisation of Islamic Conference strongly condemned the terrorist acts of nine-eleven and observed that "the brutal acts of terror ran counter to the teachings of divine religions as well as ethical and human values". Arab League called the attacks "dreadful".
Yasser Arafat emphatically declared that fighting terror was not a war against Arabs or Muslims or Islam and refused clemency to acts of terrorism in the name of Palestinian cause.
Notwithstanding the total support extended to the US war on terror there is a pervasive belief in the Muslim world that the US policy towards the Muslims is skewed by negative stereotypes of Islam that fail to recognise its diversity. It has been argued that radical Islamic
movements often arise out of legitimate needs and grievances of the oppressed sectors of the population who see the US as partly responsible for their sufferings. Professor Stephen Zunes of the University of San Francisco has pointed out that from the time of the crusades through European colonial era to the war on Iraq Western Christians have killed far more Muslims than the reverse. Given this strong sense of history among the Muslims Washington's use and threat of military force result in popular reaction that often takes the form of religious extremism. Professor Zunes faults the US policy makers for their support of repressive regimes which makes democratic and non-violent options for the Islamic opposition extremely difficult. In hindsight one could successfully argue that the Iranian Islamic Revolution would not have taken place had not the US
government of the day helped Reza Shah Pahlvi to restore his brutal regime by ousting popular Iranian Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh.
It has now been recognised by US policy makers that "democratic exceptions" made in the past by the US administrations by avoiding scrutiny of internal workings of countries in the interest of ensuring steady flow of oil, containing Soviet, Iranian or Iraqi influence or securing military bases did not further
American interest in the long run because no extremist Islamic movement has ever evolved in democratic societies. Ambassador Richard Haas, head of policy planning in the US State department explained that America's rationale in promoting democratisation in the Muslim world was both altruistic and self interested. In his view countries plagued by economic stagnation and lack of opportunity, closed political system and burgeoning population fuel alienation of their citizens resulting in transformation of these societies into breeding grounds for extremists and terrorists bent upon harming US interests. Equally important, he felt, the growing gulf between many Islamic regimes and their citizens would limit the ability of these regimes to respond coherently to issues of vital interest to the US.
Despite US pledge to remove
democratic deficit in Muslim countries by encouraging democracy to take roots in these societies, the Bush doctrine of preemp-tive/preventive war would continue to be the primary tool of war on terror. This doctrine, as is well known, has been in the center of controversy in the US and beyond. Last May Senator Dianne Feinstein addressing the Centre for Defence Information said that by adopting a policy of unilateralism and preemption undermining international law
and institutions and by increasing US reliance on nuclear weapons (including first strike against nonnuclear states) Bush administration may actually encourage proliferation of WMD while seeking to achieve the reverse. Referring to Nuclear Posture Review Senator Feinstein spoke of potential grave dangers if the US were to develop low yield nuclear weapons which in turn would justify other countries to do the same increasing the attendant risk of such weapons falling into the hands of "enemy states or terrorist groups". Her concerns were echoed by former Secretary of State Madeline Albright who stated that in all American history there has never been such a tectonic shift in foreign and security policies as between Clinton and Bush administrations. If Iraq war was in implementation of the doctrine of pre-emption/prevention (Saddam Hussein was believed to be in possession of WMD which could be launched under an hour) then we have also seen French-German Russian reluctance to bless US military action through the UNSC route.
Basically the fault line dividing the US and Europe centres around disagreement regarding source and gravity of threats to western societies and on responses to these threats. Supporters of Bush doctrine cite the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and President Kennedy's following words: "we no longer live in a world where only actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril". To Jack Kennedy any substantial increased possibility of their use or sudden change of their deployment was
unacceptable. Therefore imposition of naval quarantine over Cuba by President Kennedy was in effect an act of preemption. They argue that what constituted "maximum peril" to President Kennedy has increased manifold in today's world in which shadowy terrorists act in concert with rogue states.
While accepting the validity of US security concerns, the Muslim world would remain wary about the methods to be used by the US to meet these challenges. The Nuclear Posture Review (of January 2002) identified as possible targets countries like North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya. Saddam Hussein is gone. In case of Iran British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has assured during his recent visit to Tehran that military action against Iran was not on the card. US General Anthony Zinni who has had extensive experience of the Middle East assessed that within the next one to three years the clerics would be gone and young people and those that were slowly turning the tide would have turned Iran around. Michael Leden of American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, is of the opinion that the Iranian people have shown themselves to be the most pro-American population in the Muslim world but the Iranian regime is arguably the most antiAmerican on earth. Therefore if Iran folds anyway why bother to embark on a military adventure which may delay the departure of the clerics. US, according to General Zinni, would like President Musharraf to succeed because if he fails then Pakistan could end up in chaos like Afghanistan or become a fundamentalist state like Iran in the early days of the Ayatollah or fall under the thumbs of hardliner generals with consequent increased tension with India.
In the ultimate analysis, the Muslim world would not like to see another Muslim country pulverized like Iraq or Afghanistan. After all most Muslims are neither Islamists nor modern day Kharijites (Kharijites were people who lived outside civilization, using terrorism against their enemies and committed murders on a large scale for political objectives). Besides, Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations though an arresting thesis is not an incontrovertible one. One would, therefore, hope that the US would continue its dialogue with the Muslim world and solve the root causes of terrorism through political and developmental engagements.
Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former secretary and ambassador.