Author: Claude Arpi
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: May 16, 2002
URL: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/may/16guest.htm
Last week a suicide bomber drove
his car into a bus leaving the Sheraton Hotel in Karachi. Fourteen persons,
including 11 French engineers working in the naval base in Karachi, lost
their lives; many more were injured. The French were working for the Pakistan
Navy to produce an Agosta type of submarine (far superior to the Russian
ones used by the Indian Navy), which is assembled in the Pakistani shipyard
with parts imported from France.
This heinous crime has deeply shocked
the French public as it is the first time French citizens have been directly
targeted after September 11.
The immediate suspect of the French
media as well as the French government was the Al Qaeda network. In the
West, and in France in particular, Al Qaeda is a miracle word, which explains
all ills. General Jean Pierre Kelche, the French chief of army staff, himself
declared that 'there is a non- negligible possibility' for the involvement
of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda. After all, the French Air Force participated
in the bombing of the Tora Bora sector where a couple of months ago, bin
Laden was supposed to be hiding and it was thought logical that the Saudi
would want to take revenge.
Coming after the murder of journalist
Daniel Pearl, a correspondent for The Wall Street Journal in South Asia,
and the bomb blast in a Protestant church in a diplomatic enclave in Islamabad,
the Karachi suicide attack was immediately perceived as yet another attack
on the Western coalition fighting terrorism. There is today a plausible
lead though the inquiry may take several months and the outcome will most
probably be kept secret.
However, this murderous crime raises
some other serious questions, principally about the foreign and economic
policy of some Western nations and of France in particular.
There is a character of Molière,
the famous 17th century French playwright who keeps repeating throughout
the play Mais que diable allait-il donc faire dans cette galère?
(It can be translated as 'But what the hell were they doing in this galley?'
though 'galère' has two meanings in French, one is 'galley', the
other one 'mess', which is the same for our purpose.)
It is a question that the new French
government of Jacques Chirac -- which was elected on a very high moral
ground with 82 per cent of the votes (nearly as much as Musharraf through
his rigged referendum) -- should be asking itself. Clearly the French electorate
wanted a clean and moral government providing security to all its citizens.
So, what were these innocent engineers doing in this galley?
Another question: are the Western
powers serious about fighting terrorism? In which case, why do they ally
themselves with a nation which gives refuge to (and often overtly sponsors)
fundamentalist outfits? A corollary question, but perhaps more vital, is
why were the French engineers not repatriated when all chancelleries in
Pakistan had sent back their non-essential staff?
While visiting the site of the attack
in Karachi, the recently appointed French minister of defence, Michèle
Alliot-Marie, was very quick to declare: "If some people had thought to
strain the links between Pakistan and France, they were mistaken." Though
this statement can be attributed to someone very new in the business, it
is still rather surprising. She added: "This odious attack will not harm
the links of co-operation and friendship existing for so many years...
The current agreement will be continued." She specially mentioned the 1994
accord signed during Benazir Bhutto's regime for acquiring three submarines
for the Pakistani Navy.
No doubt Mrs Alliot-Marie had been
defence minister for only three days, but she should have been briefed
that the situation had dramatically changed in Pakistan since 1994 and
that even then the contract had been surrounded by a lot of controversy
and rumours of bribery (Benazir Bhutto's husband Asif Zardari, known as
Mr 10 per cent, was alleged to have been the recipient of the French largesse).
The sale contract of three submarines
was signed by Francois Leotard, then French minister for defence, for more
than 700 millions dollars. One of the submarines (named Khalid) was built
in Cherbourg in France, a second one is still being assembled in France,
and the third, on which the French engineers were working, was to be assembled
in Karachi through a technology transfer. (An interesting aspect of the
not-so-above-board deal is that Leotard's adviser was Renaud Donnedieu
de Vabres, who has now been nominated in the new French government as minister
of state for European affairs.)
At that time, Pakistan was still
a democracy, and one could understand that France wanted to sell its technology,
but in eight years things have changed. It is therefore relevant to ask:
what were the French staff doing in this galley? It is not that France
has a special love for Pakistan or even important strategic interests in
the region.
Things are simpler; it is plain
business. According to a report tabled in the French parliament by the
ministry of defence, Pakistan is France's third best customer after Taiwan
and Saudi Arabia. Between 1991 and 1997, military sales to Pakistan amounted
to $1.5 billion. Could France neglect such a good customer? Was it not
worth taking some risks?
Did Mrs Alliot-Marie know that a
week earlier, Musharraf, the military dictator, had rigged a referendum
to get a new five-year lease as the 'elected' president of Pakistan? Mrs
Alliot-Marie was perhaps too new to be informed of the situation inside
Pakistan, but it is a fact that France following in the steps of the US
has long chosen to close her eyes to what is going on inside her 'ally's'
house?
Each nation has its own 'national
policy' in the region; French policy seems to be mainly dictated by economic
interests. But let us look closer at these interests: many knew that behind
the veil, everything was not rosy. Senior officials in the French ministry
of defence (as well as the French CAG) had pointed out that this contract
was not good business for the simple reason that they knew Pakistan was
broke and France would have to give a loan to Islamabad to pay the bill.
It was estimated that the loss would be about 20 per cent of the contract
(or $130 million). But the politicians decided otherwise.
Later, the fact that Pakistan was
fast becoming a rogue state was not taken into consideration. Business
is business (or employment, as the politicians will put it). This occurred
also during the Kargil war. In the midst of the war on the Kargil peaks,
France was due to deliver 8 Mirage III aircraft to Pakistan. Instead of
using her 'friendship' with Pakistan to restrain Islamabad's actions on
the front, the French authorities tried to furtively deliver the Mirages.
Unfortunately for them, the delivery
leaked out and was splashed in the Indian and French press. France had
no choice but to reluctantly agree to postpone sending the planes and the
spokesman of the French foreign ministry insisted that "France was not
imposing an arms embargo against Pakistan or against neighbouring India
"with which it is at odds in the crisis".
This is a typical assessment of
the situation by a Western power when it suits its economic interests.
While there was a full-fledged war in which thousands lost their lives,
a war clearly triggered by Pakistan (under a certain General Musharraf
who had forgotten to inform his prime minister), the French foreign ministry
believed the countries were only 'at odds'.
Without naming Pakistan, France
satisfied itself by calling for an end to intrusions by armed groups across
the existing boundary lines. French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine telephoned
his Pakistani counterpart Sartaj Aziz, asking him to 'make the necessary
gestures' to resume a dialogue with India and thereby take delivery of
the Mirages.
Similarly, Mrs Alliot-Marie today
pretends that all is fine with Pakistan and the friendship can continue
to flourish.
Another point: the simplistic view
that every ill is due to Al Qaeda based in Afghanistan does not correspond
to the facts on the ground. Several other Islamic outfits have existed
and continue to exist in Pakistan. These groups striving against the very
basis of Western democracies, liberty of thought, are as dreadful as Al
Qaeda and extend their tentacles from Afghanistan to Kashmir. 'Holy War'
or 'Jihad' is their motto. Though these outfits had not till recently attacked
the interests of the West directly as Al Qaeda did, terrorism has been
on the map of South Asia for years. But who cared for Kashmir or Afghanistan
in the West as long as Europe and the US were safe?
Pakistan has had for many years
several bin Ladens with their networks fully operative in the region. After
Musharraf's January speech, the French, like most Western governments,
preferred to believe that though a dictator, the general was doing his
utmost to control Islamic groups. It was more conducive for business.
The most clever analysts may have
thought that in any case as long as the French collaborated for the defence
of Pakistan, the 'friendship' was not in danger and therefore individuals
and organisations working for the defence establishment were safe. Most
probably the reasoning was that the terrorist outfits owe their existence
and subsistence to the Pakistani Army, more particularly to the ISI. The
logical conclusion was that the mujahideen or other Islamic groups would
never bite the hand that fed them.
This was logical and till now had
been true: foreign targets have mostly been civilians within Pakistan;
it is only in India, more particularly in Kashmir, that the terrorists
had military objectives. But France, like other Western nations, has not
yet realised that a nation or organisation that spreads terror always creates
small (or big) genies which may be kept under control for a certain amount
of time, but which can one day suddenly jump out of their bottle and become
independent. This was true yesterday in the case of Ayatollah Khomeini
in Iran and today for bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Created
by the West, they turned against the West when they were no more necessary
for their sponsor.
A similar phenomenon has occurred
in Pakistan which created not only the Taliban but also all sorts of fundamentalist
groups which have been engaged for 12 years in jihad in Kashmir and elsewhere.
Who will put the genies back in their bottles?
Two notorious genies known for their
heinous actions are the Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e- Tayiba. They have
been engaged in kidnapping, hijacking and suicide bombing. They have been
working hand-in-glove with the Pakistani military intelligence, and it
is quite possible that a splinter group of one of these main groups may
have decided to attack the French presence in Pakistan.
Now the question is why is France
so involved with a nation which is herself so deeply involved with terrorism
and why did she not discover earlier that she was sending her people to
the galley?
In this context, it is significant
to point out that the trade unions of the shipyard in Cherbourg, the headquarters
of the Agosta project, were very reluctant to let the French personnel
go to Pakistan. In fact, soon after September 11, all staff had been repatriated,
but in October a team of the directorate of naval shipyards visited Karachi
and said everything was fine. A month later, the first batch of engineers
was sent to Karachi, followed by a second batch in December.
The French staff was supposed to
be in constant touch with the French embassy, which only requested them
to change their itinerary from the hotel to the shipyard daily. That was
clearly not enough.
The trade union had raised another
question: why transfer the latest technologies to countries considered
military dictatorships? Here again the shipyard and the French government
have a lame excuse: it creates employment in Cherbourg.
The main question, however, remains
unanswered: what the hell were they doing in this galley?
One can only hope that in the months
to come France will have a much more balanced and mature policy vis-à-vis
South Asia and will discover that her true friendship lies with India,
which shares the same democratic and human values.
The appointment of Kanwal Sibal,
who speaks perfect French and is a great lover of France, as the next foreign
secretary and Dominique de Villepin (who has twice been posted in Delhi)
as the new French foreign minister will certainly provide an opportunity
for Paris to strike a new and more balanced South Asian policy and develop
a healthy Indo-French partnership. The current Indo- French naval exercise
is a step in this direction.
Tailpiece: Another worrying fact
has come to light: in Cherbourg, the Pakistanis were trained on the submarine
project in a building divided in two parts by a wall. On one side, the
most sensitive research was being conducted by French engineers on the
latest prototype of a nuclear submarine, while on the other side was the
workshop named 'Khattak' where the Pakistanis learned to handle the Agosta
submarine. One can only hope that wall was not too porous.
