THE UNFOLDING CRISIS IN PAKISTAN - III
New imperial cartographies. Destroying
and re-creating national boundaries
by Rahnuma Ahmed
[t]he new face of globalization embodied in Mr. Obama who has began his new war in Pakistan in collaboration with the Indian government, in order to dismantle that country and balkanize it like the rest of the world. Certainly, the region will witness more contrived attacks that will escalate the conflict on the borders of India and Pakistan, which will eventually change the map of the region.
Rev Richard Skaff, ‘Obama’s new wars’, Global Research, May 2, 2009
EMPIRE, as an idea, is constructed through cartographic, or map-making, discourses. And thus, it is not surprising, in the context of imperial histories of the west, and its imperial present, that a map termed ‘The New Middle East’ – stretching from Turkey in the west to Pakistan in the east – should surface in the early years of this century. A century that America’s rulers wish to re-craft as ‘the American century’.
As the world’s oil reserves increasingly got depleted – global oil production is reported to have peaked in 2004-05 – fierce competition began for control over the remaining oil reserves (the ‘great energy war’). Dick Cheney, the former US vice-president, summed it up best when he reminded his audience at the London Institute of Petroleum in 1999, ‘The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world’s oil and lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.’ He should know, he was then the CEO of the oil giant Halliburton. Of course, after becoming the vice-president, he no longer spoke about the Middle-East as the ‘prize’, but as ‘the place [where] terrorism must be confronted.’ Cheney was also one of the signatories to PNAC, the Project for a New American Century, a shop that is said to have closed down. So, do we still need to worry about America’s grand imperial designs, about overt and covert warfare? According to a Washington Post report (2006), an unidentified PNAC source had said, they had winded up but not from any sense of failure. On the contrary. Their goals, they felt, had been ‘accomplished’.
The escalation in war (albeit with a change in terminology, recently pre-packaged as ‘overseas contingency operation’) under the Obama administration, proves that.
Did America covet its neighbour’s oil any less in the last century? No. The Eisenhower Doctrine, 1956-1958, was adopted to ensure US access to oil and gas. William Blum in the Rogue State writes, ‘In keeping with that policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to US-supported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome Middle-East nationalism.’
Ralph Peters: ‘Ethnic cleansing works’
THE new imperial cartographer is Lt Col Ralph Peters of the US National War Academy, who was posted to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence within the US Defence Department before his retirement, and is considered to be one of the Pentagon’s leading authors. Two maps of the Middle East, one Before, and the other After, were published with his article, ‘Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look’, in the Armed Forces Journal (June 2006 http:// www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899/).
A more peaceful Middle East, writes Peters, requires major boundary revisions. Colonisers of earlier eras (Peters calls them ‘self-interested Europeans’) had drawn the ‘most arbitrary and distorted borders’ in Africa and the Middle East. A fairer, even though not perfect, arrangement can be made if ‘national boundaries between the Bosporus and the Indus’ are amended. By conforming to the Middle East’s ‘organic frontiers’, it would correct the ‘wrongs suffered by the most significant “cheated” population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia.’ Until these ‘colossal, man-made deformities’ are corrected, hatred and violence will continue. Between all this proselytising, Peters slips in a sentence – ‘Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works’ – which does not conceal the murderous intent behind the new cartography.
Some countries would gain, others would lose, a small number would remain unchanged. The most glaring injustice, according to Peters, is the absence of an independent Kurdish state. A Free Kurdistan, made up of Iraq, Turkey and Syria, would reverse the human rights sin of omission – the failure to champion Kurdish independence. Better still, it would deliver ‘the most pro-Western state’ between Bulgaria and Japan. The rest of Iraq would be divided into a ‘Sunni Iraq’ and an ‘Arab Shia State’. Jordan would gain with ‘southward expansion at Saudi expense.’ Mecca and Medina together would form a Sacred Islamic State, ‘a sort of Muslim super-Vatican’. Iran would lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State, and Free Baluchistan, but it would gain provinces around Herat from Afghanistan. Although losing to Persia in the west, Afghanistan would gain from Pakistan in the east. The latter, another ‘unnatural state’, like Saudi Arabia, would suffer similar dismantling. It would lose its Baluch territory to Free Baluchistan. Bloodshed, writes Peters is inevitable, but gradually new and natural (organic) borders will emerge. And of course, until they do, ‘our men and women in uniform will continue to fight for security from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy and for access to oil supplies.’
The map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine but it has been used in a training programme at NATO’s defence college for senior military officers, reportedly, at the National War Academy, and also in military planning circles since mid-2006. Its display in NATO’s military college in Rome, Italy sparked angry reactions among officers in Turkey, outraged to see a ‘portioned and segmented’ Turkey. The Turkish chief of staff protested to the US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, this led to an American apology. I wonder, has similar outrage at the map been officially expressed by the military leadership and officers in Pakistan?
Peters’ article is available at the AFJ website, minus its maps. However, they are to be found at wikipedia and other websites. Its casual surfacing and circulation has led Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya to speculate whether it is an ‘attempt to build consensus.’ Maybe, to gradually prepare the general public for ‘possible, maybe even cataclysmic, changes in the Middle East’?
Vultures gathering for the feast?
Rajinder Puri, in a piece titled ‘If Pakistan Breaks...’ (Outlook India, April 15, 2009) cites the instance of China which, to safeguard its ‘strategic interests’, has recently signed an agreement with the NWFP provincial government, thereby ‘bypassing the central government of Pakistan to forge direct ties with its potential breakaway province.’ The agreement was signed on April 7 by the Pakistan ambassador and the governor of Xingjian province. Puri adds, ‘Afghanistan, Baluchistan and the territory it occupies in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir are necessary for Beijing to maintain its access to Gwadar port in Baluchistan and to Iran with which it has finalized mega contracts for supply of energy. It also seeks to maintain easy access from its Xingjian province to troubled Tibet.’ Puri advises his own government to ‘start formulating its future policies’ based on the ‘assumption’ that Pakistan may not ‘survive as a nation state.’
Pakistan, he writes, is an ‘artificially created’ state (reminiscent of Peters’ argument for ‘organic states’). It is, he contends, ‘under serious assault because of its internal contradictions.’ Of course, I have no reason to support Pakistan’s past military juntas, or its present pliant political leadership, and least of all, the octopus-like military-intelligence network, corrupt and power-hungry to the core. But Puri’s obliviousness to the Anglo-American military roadmap, to the evolving US foreign policy agenda of balkanisation (currently taking place in Iraq), or to map-making that advocates ethnic cleansing, contributes to the regional imperial reasoning.
As death approaches, vultures gather for the feast – so the saying goes.
The drones are coming
If there is one outstanding similarity between the Afghanistan and Pakistan cases it is the fact the US is using the same flawed logic that responds to most delicate conflicts with bullets, whether those of its own or its allies, writes Ramzy Baroud
US president Barack Obama took the podium in a White House press conference and stood with an all-embellished confidence that often accompanies new presidents. He was flanked by two leaders whose apparent grandeur barely reflected their embattled situations on the ground: Afghan president Hamid Karzai and Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari.
The meeting at the White House on May 6 was fashioned to give the impression that the new US administration is both ‘serious’ and ‘committed’ about resolving the crises plaguing Afghanistan and Pakistan, which are imprudently reduced to that of a Taliban resurgence in the former, and a Taliban- inspired militant encroachment in the latter. Obama declared the meeting ‘extraordinarily productive’ as the three nations, he said, are joined by the common goal to ‘defeat al-Qaeda and its extremist allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan.’
The skewed reading of reality didn’t cease there. ‘I am pleased that these two men, elected leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan, fully appreciate the seriousness of the threat that we face and have reaffirmed their commitment to confronting it,’ Obama said. Both leaders listened solemnly as to reflect the level of their ‘seriousness’.
For a fleeting moment one did in fact hope that Obama would bring with him more than a new language; rather, an entirely new take on US foreign policy. That hope is already in tatters.
‘Obama conveyed the right message last week by hosting Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. The meeting at the White House reflected the close link between Pakistan and the anti-Taliban struggle in Afghanistan. Indeed, nests of Taliban, al-Qaeda, and other extremists sheltering on the Pakistani side of the border have become a grave threat to Pakistan itself,’ opined a Boston Globe editorial. But the Globe also counselled: ‘As recent events suggest, US military strikes against militants in both countries inevitably provoke anger and indignation among civilians.’
This is as much as most US media – and of course, the US administration – are willing to concede as far as US responsibility in lethal wars, civil strife and militancy in both countries is concerned. In fact, if one is to delineate a major difference in the Bush and Obama administrations regarding Afghanistan, it’s the fact that Obama apologises when the number of innocent civilians killed by US air strikes is too harrowing to ignore. Another notable difference is that he has committed 17,000 additional troops to the already war-devastated country, promising more bloodshed.
‘I wish to express my personal regret and certainly the sympathy of our administration on the loss of civilian life in Afghanistan,’ secretary of state Hillary Clinton said in her public apology to the killing of over 100 civilians in two Afghan villages May 4. The apology, however, was obliquely qualified by the US military in comments made by Tech Sergeant Chuck Marsh on May 9: ‘Reports also indicate that Taliban fighters deliberately forced villagers into houses from which they then attacked ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] and Coalition forces,’ he said.
So, somehow, the US is still not responsible.
Now the war is flaring up in Pakistan. Hundreds of thousands of Pakistani families have fled the area, and the main town of Migora has been virtually emptied of its inhabitants. Reuters reported that, ‘Pakistani forces attacked Taliban fighters in the Swat Valley with artillery and helicopters after the United States called on the government to show its commitment to fighting militancy.’ One has to wonder who is giving the orders in this foolish war, anyway? Moreover, does Obama genuinely think that the Pakistani ‘Taliban’ can be defeated using the exact approach that failed against the Taliban of Afghanistan?
The escalation in Pakistan is not entirely surprising, however, as US officials and media pundits have been adamant in advising the new administration that it was not Afghanistan that posed the greater threat to US interests, but Pakistan. It was similar to the attitude of neoconservatives in the Bush administration after its failure in Iraq. It was not Iraq that the US should have attacked, but Iran, they tirelessly parroted, hoping to generate yet another war.
What we are not told, however, is that unremitting US bombings of the utterly poor and neglected northern provinces of Pakistan have garnered untold animosity towards the US and its central government allies. It provoked, in some areas, total chaos and lawlessness, which in turn gave rise to the Pakistani ‘Taliban’. History is repeating itself, but the US administration is taking no notice of the obvious pattern.
A Pakistan writer, Abd Al-Ghafar Aziz, wrote for Al-Jazeera’s Arabic website: ‘Since the US attack on Afghanistan, the province [of Balochistan] has been accused of supporting terrorism and harbouring the leaders of Taliban and al-Qaeda. Since then, US planes, especially drones, have been striking what it calls ‘precious targets’, resulting in the death of over 15,000 people.’ Aziz described the people of that region ‘like orphans without shelter, and without protection.’ Naturally, tribe leaders, militant groups and others moved to fill the gap.
If there is one outstanding similarity between the Afghanistan and Pakistan cases it is the fact the US is using the same flawed logic that responds to most delicate conflicts with bullets, whether those of its own or its allies. If the new administration is keenly interested in reversing the misfortunes of that region, it has to understand the uniqueness of every country and appreciate the untold harm inflicted on civilians by the US and other militaries. Only dialogue and truly respecting the sovereignty of Afghanistan and Pakistan can begin to stabilise the fractious situation.
There are an estimated one million Pakistanis already on the run in the northern and eastern parts of the country. They are threatened by fighting, hunger and all sorts of predators, including US drones circling overhead.
Countercurrents.org, May 15. Ramzy Baroud is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com.
A green deal for Africa
Violence, disease and drought can be averted, if the voice of the poor gets a hearing at the Copenhagen climate change summit, write Kofi Annan and Nicholas Stern
The evidence is clear: Africa is experiencing the powerful impact of climate change. Weather patterns are changing, resulting in more droughts and floods, and higher air and water temperatures. Glaciers on the famous Rwenzori mountains, long fabled as the Mountains of the Moon, have shrunk by half since the late 1980s – symbolic of more profound changes taking place.
The effects on people, particularly the poor, are severe. Farmers, pastoralists, fishing communities and town dwellers are vulnerable to changes in water availability and agricultural productivity. As yields drop, people need other sources of income to meet their basic needs. A warmer climate increases the risk of vector-borne diseases such as malaria. Even if the temperature rise can be kept within the 2C band, an additional 40-60 million Africans are likely to be exposed. Economic necessity and competition for resources are already resulting in mass movement of people within countries and across borders, heightened social tension and, in many cases, violence.
The economic implications are enormous. Receipts from agricultural activities, which account for over half the jobs and GDP in many African countries, may decline sharply. And just as national revenues are strained, demand for public expenditure will increase.
African ministers of finance are meeting in Rwanda next week to craft a response to climate change. They are central to finding a solution, for climate change cannot be treated as a sectoral issue. It is fundamental to the success of economic growth and achievement of the millennium development goals.
The news is not all bad. Climate change opens up opportunities to generate revenue and diversify economies. Projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can help rich countries meet carbon offset obligations and generate revenue for entrepreneurs and governments. The clean development mechanism, for example, allows industrialised countries to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries, as an alternative to more expensive emissions reductions in their own countries.
Other schemes offer African countries the chance to benefit from global payments for preservation of forests, which in turn capture carbon and preserve soil, water and life. Indeed, long-term climate change strategies offer a chance for African countries to leapfrog towards efficient renewable technologies.
Effective policies and creative market measures are needed to mobilise investment in renewable power sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. A resource-efficient green-economy future will require financial support and technology transfer from more advanced economies. This would only be fair. After all, Africa accounts for a mere 2.3% of fossil fuel consumption, though it has 13.8% of the world’s population.
But recognition that Africa is least responsible yet most vulnerable is not enough. African governments need to decide how they will adapt their economies and protect their people, and set out what they expect the international community to do to support them.
First, they need to take the lead in crafting development strategies that adapt to climate change as well as invest in infrastructure and clean energy. Shovel-ready projects that bring affordable and environmentally sustainable energy to African communities need to be fast-tracked and implemented right away.
Second, international organisations, including the African Development Bank, regional economic commissions, UN and Bretton Woods institutions, need the funds, leadership and technical competence to support governments in responding to climate change.
And third, a new global climate deal must address the needs of the least developed countries, most of which are in Africa. It must include binding commitments to ensure access to financial resources and technological knowhow, and reform instruments like the clean development mechanism to ensure they work for Africa. At present, they do not.
The importance of the climate change summit in Copenhagen in December must not be underestimated. The best way for the voice of poor countries to be heard is by promoting a clear position on key issues, including the steps that they and their partners will take to ensure financing of adaptation and appropriate mitigation actions using new and additional sources of swiftly accessible funds – including from carbon markets – and to ensure existing international aid commitments are met.
Africa is not homogeneous. Countries’ needs vary. But a strong common position for least developed countries, championed by Africa’s heads of state, and anchored with G77 and Chinese partners, must be the cornerstone of a diplomatic and political campaign to secure a fair deal in Copenhagen.
The Guardian UK, May 17. Kofi Annan, a former UN secretary general, chairs the Africa Progress Panel; Lord Stern is IG Patel professor of economics and government at the LSE and led the 2006 Stern review on the economics of climate change.
Congress returns
Dr. Manmohan Singh returns to office largely unencumbered by the demands and conditions that his UPA partners have placed on him, leading to compromises that were not in the best interest of the nation. This time, there will be no excuses for shying away from doing what is right. To their great credit, the Ghandis have shown gentility that dynasties are not known for. That, combined with their sense of commitment, bodes well. Where insiders feel Rahul showed impeccable leadership is the clarity he provided on two vital issues which could have clouded the party campaign. One, he unambiguously kept the issue of prime ministership out of the pale of speculation, despite the clamour for taking the baton. He appeared to have kept the best advice and stuck to the script with rare focus. For a man to have clocked 125 meetings, covering 87,000km, Rahul also proved a tireless campaigner. It can be said with some evidence that he struck a chord with the youth across the country. Bring young generation together and inspire them to take interest in honest politics and stand for integrity and progress for future generations instead of hatred and divisions based on caste, religion and region. A man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act.
Gopal Sengupta
Canada
|
Next on Quick Comments
| |
a) 2 ex-NSI chiefs arrested over Ctg arms haul (New Age, May 17)
b) Not a single penny of climate change fund used (New Age, May 17)
c) 1,300 workers may be sent back from Malaysia (New Age, May 17)
d) Congress sweeps to India polls victory (New Age, May 17)
|
‘Quick Comments’, (01713-065-354, letters@newagebd.com, quickcomments@gmail.com ) seeks the readers’ instant reaction ondifferent national and international issues. Comments should be brief, not exceeding 150 words. Submissions should mention ‘Quick Comments’ and will be subject to editing for quality and clarity..
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
