Author: G Parthasarathy
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: February 13, 2003
Even as New Delhi appears to be
obsessed with its Islamabad centred concerns, the United States seems determined
to reassess its past priorities and policies in the larger Islamic world,
West Asia in general and the Persian Gulf in particular. The State Department's
Mr Richard Haass had asserted last month that the growing gulf between
the regimes and citizens of many Islamic countries increasingly limited
the ability of these regimes to "provide assistance to, or even to acquiesce
in, American efforts to combat terrorism or address the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction". Mr Haass argued that "greater democracy in
Muslim majority countries is good for the people who live there. But it
is also good for the United States". Secretary of State Colin Powell has
now made out the case that an American success in Iraq would "fundamentally
reshape" West Asia and particularly the Persian Gulf.
The extent of the American determination
to leave no stone unturned to "reshape" even its own former allies, including
Saudi Arabia, was mentioned to me during a rather interesting exchange
I had with a distinguished former CIA official. I was made aware of the
depth of American feeling after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington,
when this former official said that the US now regards itself as being
in the midst of the "Fourth World War". The first two World Wars had been
won militarily and World War III against the Soviet Union had been won
without a single bullet being fired on the adversary. The "Fourth World
War", I was told, would involve taking the fight into the "enemy's territory"
and signaling to the countries that harbour terrorists that "their sovereignty
is at risk".
More important, I was told the US
is particularly angry at countries that use "so called charities" to fund
individuals and organisations promoting fundamentalism and religious extremism,
which threaten the stability of pluralistic societies across the globe.
While all this was certainly not the official position of the Bush Administration,
it did signal a determination in influential circles in Washington to even
take on erstwhile allies that are now having their ordinary citizens fingerprinted,
photographed and registered in the US.
An America-led war against Iraq
now appears inevitable. Iraq's immediate neighbours are now lining up behind
the Americans. Turkey is getting its bases readied and Qatar, Oman, Kuwait,
Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have all made their support for the
Americans very clear. There have been unpublicised contacts between American
and Iranian officials in Europe and the Americans are said to have been
reassured that Iran will not play spoilsport in their war on Iraq.
In any case, Iran has for long maintained
contacts in Iraq with those opposed to the Government of President Saddam
Hussein. It is only a question of time before Saudi Arabia and Egypt quietly
fall in line with American imperatives. While France and Germany appear
to be resolutely opposed to any precipitous American military action in
Iraq, the European Union is clearly split, with important countries like
Spain and Italy endorsing the Anglo-American approach.
The days ahead are going to be crucial
for American efforts to obtain a fig leaf of legitimacy for military action
from the Security Council. While the US has been restraining the Kurds
and Turkey from seeking any territorial advantages in cities like Kirkuk
and elsewhere, in the emerging situation, it remains to be seen if the
Americans will keep steadfast in preserving the unity and territorial integrity
of Iraq. They did not set a particularly welcome example in Kosovo.
The "Woolsey Plan" (named after
former CIA Director James Woolsey) envisaged the trifurcation of Saudi
Arabia, with the oil-rich Shia-dominated Province of Ihsa becoming a virtual
US protectorate. While control of oil resources has been an important factor
behind American policies in the Persian Gulf, there are two main driving
forces behind the present policies. The first is to ensure that weapons
of mass destruction do not reach the wrong hands. Second, those who promote
and finance fundamentalist Wahabi extremism across the world are reined
in and, if necessary, eliminated.
The Americans make no secret of
their frustration in getting Saudi Arabia to ensure that its so-called
charities like the Rabita and Motamar are banned from indulging in the
export of Wahabi fundamentalism. The Washington-based Bangaldeshi writer
Jamal Hasan has recently written about how the Saudis went to the extent
of preventing Bangladeshi nationals from undertaking Haj pilgrimages and
endeavouring to economically and politically isolate our eastern neighbour,
till it renounced the provision in its Constitution about Bangladesh being
a "Secular Republic."
Mr Hasan observes, "The Saudis wanted
to see all the non-Arab Muslim majority countries detach themselves from
secularism and other 'infidel' political ideologies and join the Arab hegemonistic
Islamist camp." Even today, virtually every Islamic fundamentalist and
terrorist organisation ranging from the Harkat-ul Mujahideen in Pakistan
to the Jamaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh are known to receive funds and support
from Saudi Arabia.
Pakistan is not going to remain
immune from the American drive to end funding and support for armed, Islamic
fundamentalist groups in the long run. It is not without significance that
the soft-spoken American Ambassador in Islamabad, Ms Nancy Powell, has
asked Pakistan to cease remaining a "platform" for global terrorism. General
Pervez Musharraf has warned that Pakistan itself would be a target, after
the Americans address their present priorities in the Persian Gulf.
The Taliban and the Al Qaeda have
now joined hands with the favourite protégé of the ISI in
Afghanistan, Mr Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, to attack American troops and their
Afghan allies in the Hamid Karzai Government. These attacks will be intensified
once the American war in Iraq intensifies and the predominant focus of
American military attention shifts from Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf.
The Washington Post has recently
reported how General Musharraf continues to run with the hare and hunt
with the hound. Earlier restrictions placed temporarily on jihadi outfits
like the Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad have been removed. Even
as General Musharraf swears by his commitment to the war against terrorism
and seeks membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in meetings
with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Lashkar openly collects funds
across Pakistan for "jihad in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia and Kashmir".
New Delhi will have to adopt a pragmatic
and measured approach in dealing with coming events to our west. In fashioning
our approach to coming events, we will have to be clear in our minds that
the US alone has the power to compel countries funding and supporting Wahabi
extremism and promoting terrorist violence in our neighbourhood to change
course. There is naturally concern about the impending American attack
on a friendly and secular country like Iraq. A prolonged conflict in Iraq,
marked by heavy civilian casualties could have a profoundly destabilising
impact, both internationally and in our entire neighbourhood. Many independent
military observers expect the conflict to last around six weeks. It would
be a tragedy if heavy civilian casualties mark the conflict. The Americans
would hardly be in a position to claim victory, if this were to happen.