The day the world changed
Shafqat Mahmood
The writer is a former Senator
and a former federal and provincial minister
smahmood@lhr.comsats.net.pk
The Americans are calling the catastrophic events in New York and Washington as another Pearl Harbour. The use of this symbolism is indicative of how deeply searing the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon has been on the American psyche. The Japanese assault on American ships and installations in Hawaii's Pearl Harbour was not just the start of the pacific war. It is seen to this day as an example of infamy, of treachery, of cold-blooded deceit.
This attack triggered an outrage that sustained the American spirit throughout the Second World War. All nations demonise their enemies but Pearl Harbour created a hatred that was unprecedented. From its core emerged the justification to use weapons of mass destruction. It was this anger that led to atomic bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It is necessary to lay out the implications of Pearl Harbour in stark terms only to place in context the reaction that is visible now in the United States. Outrage is not a strong enough word to describe the emotional state of both the leaders and the people. There is anger, lots of it, and a great deal of hurt but above all there is a sense of personal violation.
The American mainland has never experienced anything like this in all the wars that the US has fought in the last two hundred years. This new kind of enemy is not fighting in the battlefields of Europe or the Middle East or Asia. It has struck in the American front yard.
At times like this one has to be careful not to indulge in too much hyperbole. When the dust settles, in this case literally, the reality may look a bit different. However, one thing is clear. There is a cold fury in the United States that will find an outlet. There is an anger that will not dissipate. This is not an event that would settle down to the normal by ways of diplomacy, to give and take, or to an occasional and transient burst of action. This is war, and is being described as such by American leaders, and wars have a tendency to change the world.
The world is already beginning to change. Air travel is the first casualty. Not only because flights are being cancelled all over the world. These will resume in most places although British Airways cancellation of flights to Islamabad is a danger signal for us. We must do everything to assure foreign airlines that our air space and airports are safe. Clearly, more stringent standards of security will be applied not only on international flights but also on domestic flights all over the world. This will put many others and us from Middle East and Asia in a very difficult situation.
Visa restrictions, which are already very tough for us, will become even more stringent. I see a downturn in travel between East and West, particularly from the Muslim nations. It is a sad fact that Islam was already being given a negative connotation in the West. Now, the intensity of these unfair images will increase. I never believed in Samuel Huntington thesis of clash of civilisations. Unfortunately, after these terror attacks, the rhetoric is beginning to sound uncomfortably close to Huntington's predictions.
The impact on global economy is also being felt. All the major stock markets are showing a downturn. These attacks come at a particularly bad time because the US economy was already showing signs of recession. Japan and Germany, the two other large economies, were also in difficulty. This spells trouble for everyone. Over 60% of our textile exports were to the United States and the rest to Europe and Japan. How hard this will hit us, only time can tell. One thing is clear. Global trade will not escape the ravages of terrorism. Particularly hard hit will be the poorer nations whose survival depended on the buoyancy of Western economies.
The notion of security will also change. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was no credible enemy for the West. Now the enemy has been identified. Nato, a security alliance, has already invoked article 5, which has never been invoked before. This article states that any attack on a member nation will be seen as an attack on all the nations of the alliance. They are waiting for the Americans to positively identify the enemy and Nato, including all its constituent nations, will be at war.
This brings me to a particularly touchy subject for Pakistan. All preliminary reports from the United States indicate that these terrorist attacks were undertaken by people linked to Osama Bin Ladin. If the Americans come to a firm conclusion that indeed Osama is responsible, there will be an attempt at retribution.
Retribution can take many forms. There could be an air strike, a missile attack or a covert operation in Afghanistan. There are some voices calling for an outright assault on the Taliban. All these option spell grave difficulties for us.
We have so far managed a delicate balancing act. While assuring the American of our sincere desire to help them, we have claimed that there is not much that we can do in Afghanistan. Our protestations of helplessness in the face of Taliban intransigence were tolerated while not accepted by the Americans. Now the postures are going to harden, not just a little bit but exponentially. In the mood that they are in, the Americans are not going to indulge fence sitters.
If you listen carefully to the statements of American leaders, the emphasis is on total and unreserved support from all nations in the fight against terrorism. They are also making it a point to target the nations that harbour, allow or assist terrorist 'groups'. In other words, it is not just the Osama organisation that they are identifying as the source of terror, but a large number of other individuals and organisations. The State Department also has a list of such terror groups and if I am not wrong some of our homegrown Jihadi outfits are on it. If this is true, we are already in the category of nations, according to American estimates, in whose territory terror groups operate.
We are thus going to be confronted by two serious problems. One, if Osama is identified as the culprit, the Americans would want our full cooperation to hunt him down. This could mean at a minimum the use of air space. It could also mean allowing our soil to become a staging post for an assault on Osama and by default on Taliban. Two, there are groups on our soil whom Americans consider terrorists and would want us to either evict them or finish them off. Some of these so-called terrorists are involved in the Kashmir Jihad. None of these are going to be simple or easy options for the government.
The problem for General Musharraf and his colleagues is that it may no longer be possible to steer a middle course. One side will be angry whether it is the Jihadis or the Americans. The mood that they are in, the Americans may no longer accept counsels of caution. They are primed for action. On the other side, the Taliban are not likely to hand in Osama and our very own Jihadis are not likely to roll over and play dead. An irresistible force is going to hit against an immovable object. Caught in between would be the Government of Pakistan.
The next few days and weeks will test
the mettle of the Musharraf government. The choices that are made will determine
the destiny of our nation. Yes, it is as serious as that.