http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FK03Df03.html
ASIA TIMES ONLINE EXCLUSIVE
Benazir Bhutto's answer to al-Qaeda
Benazir Bhutto, daughter of former premier Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, as leader of the
Pakistan People's Party, served as premier for two terms, 1988-90 and 1993-96, the
first term making her the first female prime minister in the Muslim world. She
currently lives in self-imposed exile. Asia Times Online's Syed Saleem Shahzad spoke
to Mrs Bhutto on a wide range of topics.
Asia Times Online: Islamic extremists have called for "death to America", with
no room for compromise. Why has this extremism emerged now, and not, for instance,
during the Cold War?
Benazir Bhutto: The slogan "death to America" was, to my knowledge, raised
before Islamic extremists took center stage in global politics. If I recall correctly,
it was used way back in Latin America during the times of Che Guevara and Pancho
Villa. The slogan is today considered more deadly because of the events of 9/11. In
the past, it was more a manifestation of anger or resentment among those who raised
such slogans. The events of 9/11 have given it a less rhetorical content.
During the Cold War the countries which felt aggrieved used superpower rivalry
to promote their agendas. With the demise of the Soviet Union, and the rise of Islamic
extremists during the fight against the Soviet occupation [of Afghanistan], Islamic
extremists felt that they could take on the remaining superpower. It is unlikely that
non-state actors can take on a superpower without being assisted by another
superpower. However, they can cause random terror, spread insecurity and fear, give
birth to a clash of cultures and religions and create more hatred and intolerance.
This is the real danger. We need to counter such extremism by promoting unity,
tolerance and respect to different races, religions and genders. In such moderation
lies the harmony and well being of the world community. Moreover, we need to address
unresolved political issues to prevent extremists from exploiting them for their own
narrow and theocratic ends.
ATol: The US says "you are with us or against us" - all-out war with no
compromise.
Bhutto: The impact of 9/11 was dramatic and led to a dramatic declaration that
either you are with us or against us. The United States was struck in its financial
and political center - while Pearl Harbor was on the periphery in comparison. Pearl
Harbor drew the US into World War II. The attacks of 9/11 have drawn it into the war
against terror. For some time, the events of 9/11 will continue to dominate the agenda
of global politics, with the US in the lead.
ATol: The US is fighting a war against an invisible enemy called al-Qaeda and
Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front (a loose coalition of pro-al-Qaeda
organizations). What is al-Qaeda in the real sense? Is there an ideology behind its
movement, or are they just a bunch of militants who are mindlessly in search of soft
US targets to blow up?
Bhutto: Al-Qaeda has managed to unite disparate militant groups into an
international confederate of terrorists, which is at times is called the Islamic
Front. Often these groups exploit local tensions, for example the tensions in the
Middle East, the nationalistic feelings of the Chechen people, the nationalistic
opposition to foreign troops in Iraq or the Kashmir dispute. However, they do have an
ideology. Their real agenda is to use regional political issues to bring about a
theocratic dictatorship similar to the one that existed in Afghanistan under the
Taliban. Gender discrimination, cultural intolerance, denial of representation,
repression of freedom and subjugation of the masses to one-man clerical dictatorship
is a negation of humanity's struggle to overcome suffering and to live in respect and
dignity. It is important to separate the terrorists from the regional issue by
defusing tensions where they exist through political action.
ATol:There is a theory that Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf was the
biggest supporter of al-Qaeda before September 11, 2001. Why and how did he became the
"most trusted" US partner in the "war on terror"? And does the Pakistani army fully
support him?
Bhutto: It is a fact that the Musharraf regime was the biggest supporter of the
Taliban, who harbored al-Qaeda, which was recruiting and training men for terrorism
prior to 9/11. This policy was defended in the name of strategic depth. I called it
"strategic threat" in a speech I gave in parliament calling for the breaking of ties
with the Taliban in 1998. According to a book by Bob Woodward, the Bush administration
asked Musharraf to stand up and be counted as friend or foe. Since he gave a positive
answer in one telephone call, they decided to work with him. It was more convenient
for Washington to work with someone stating he was prepared to play ball than bring
about a change at a time of immense crisis. Washington has managed to squeeze
concessions out of Musharraf. There is a US base in Pakistan, the FBI [US Federal
Bureau of Investigation] are allowed to operate [in Pakistan] and through electronic
"transepts" have captured some big fish. Musharraf in turn has been able to use the
relationship to buy time during which the Taliban (either deliberately or
inadvertently) have been able to regroup. He has also cleverly held out the promise of
the capture of a high-value target - read Osama bin Laden or [Taliban leader] Mullah
Omar - during the US presidential-election year.
The Pakistan army is a disciplined force. It may be unhappy having to kill
civilians in search of terrorists in the tribal areas, but it does what it is ordered
to do through its chain of command. There have been isolated incidents that
demonstrate a lack of support, namely in the two assassination attempts [last year]
against Musharraf, and some other incidents. However, this kind of isolated,
junior-level activity is not new. It has occurred in the past during the Attock
Conspiracy case of the 1970s [to overthrow Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's government] and the
Islamic Brotherhood attempt to overthrow the democratic government in the 1990s.
By involving the military in civilian affairs and scandals ... as well as
political persecution, the impartiality of the armed forces and its professionalism
has been made subject to public controversy. It is this controversial political role
that would make most professional officers uncomfortable.
ATol: The US invasion of Iraq, in the name of creating a civil society and a
liberal democracy in the Middle East, has instead promoted fundamentalist trends,
especially in Iraq itself, which had been a tolerant secular society but is now a
fundamentalist hotbed where private Shi'ite and Sunni militias rule the roost.
Bhutto: There were two plans: one for the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime
and the second for a postwar order. The first worked and the second did not. The
consequences are before us. It's a tragedy to see Muslims divided on sectarian lines.
It's important for Muslims to unite and dissent on political rather than religious
issues.
ATol: Previously, Islamic fundamentalist parties could not make headway in
elections, now they are emerging as a challenge in countries such as Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Turkey, Malaysia and Indonesia.
Bhutto: Extremist and fundamentalist political parties have never been able to
score any significant political victories in countries like Pakistan. In fact, if the
past record is any guide, it is clear that the extremist parties were never voted into
power or even brought close to it by the people. The extremists rose under the
dictatorship of General Zia ul-Haq in Pakistan. The religious parties [Muttahhida
Majlis-e-Amal] formed a government for the first time [in North West Frontier
Province] under General Musharraf's dictatorship.
It is dictatorship that leads to the rise of extremist groups. Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc are all countries that share a
background of long periods of military or authoritarian rule. The best defense against
extremism and terrorism is the promotion of freedom, human dignity, rule of law,
tolerance and pluralism. The present marginalization of moderate political parties in
Pakistan can cause blow-back in time. There is a political vacuum in Pakistan which is
dangerous to the future.
ATol: There is an extreme feeling of dissent within religious political parties,
which is further giving birth to more extreme notions. Jihadi organizations are one
manifestation, but there is a very strong opinion flourishing in the shape of Hizbut
Tehrir-like organizations, which has taken strong roots in Central Asia and is
silently taking root in Pakistan. Unlike religious-political parties, they do not
believe in democracy at all. What is the perspective of these trends?
Bhutto: During the days of fighting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan
[1980s], a military dictator in Pakistan [Zia] used religious parties to recruit
fighters. He used money to set up religious schools whose real purpose was to
indoctrinate young men into becoming robots. Since he was associated with the Muslim
Brotherhood, he used those links to bring together members of the Muslim Brotherhood
from different parts of the world. They were brainwashed into believing that after
defeating the Soviet Union, they could take on the other superpower, namely America.
They were never told that the success against the Soviets was because it was a proxy
war with international backing. These indoctrinated elements were patronized in the
military, security, civilian and political structure of Pakistan. They believe that
Islam came to Pakistan through the shores of Central Asia and can now be exported to
Europe through Central Asia. Hence we see the cells operating in that area.
I believe that both my governments were destabilized by these forces. The
Pakistan People's Party and I posed the most potent threat to them. We gave an
alternative vision of freedom, human rights, modernity compatible with religion as
well as progress and prosperity. Pakistan, under the PPP, was an example of a
moderate, enlightened and modern democracy to 1 billion Muslims at the crossroads
having to choose between the past and the future. These elements prefer Musharraf to
the PPP. Musharraf is a military dictator and is not an ideological alternative to
them. They have scuttled all attempts at rapprochement between the army led by
Musharraf and the people led by the PPP. This is why some sections of the media have
speculated that Islamabad could be seized by a combine of religio-political-military
elements. I do not believe that this nightmare scenario is possible because I believe
that the restoration of democracy can turn the wheel of disaster into one of
opportunity for the people of Pakistan - and the wider world community.
Previously, the religious parties were used to help recruit militants. With the
passage of two decades, the militant cells are becoming more independent of the
religious parties. While they take their spiritual mentoring from the religious
parties, their organizational structures are cellular and independent. But there is a
real danger today. Disillusioned with military dictatorship and unable to express
disillusionment through a fair electoral process, the danger is of the radicalization
of the masses. This disillusionment provides a perfect breeding ground for extremist
organizations. That was why in Pakistan, parties that are sympathetic to the Taliban
and al-Qaeda claim that neither democracy nor military dictatorship works and that
theocratic rule should be given a chance. Thus, when people are denied the democratic
model of development, they can choose a system that is even worse than military
dictatorship.
ATol: Why have secular forces in Muslim societies failed to contain
fundamentalism?
Bhutto: Most secular forces were kept out of government during the Cold War by
military or authoritarian rulers lacking grass-root support and legitimacy. Since
authoritarianism and dictatorship rested on force rather than on law, it gave birth to
a culture of lawlessness and extremism. We need to have democracy in the Muslim world
and we need to spend more on education and human development to contain the forces of
extremism.
ATol: Where do liberation movements such as those in Palestine and Kashmir
stand?
Bhutto: The armed struggle of the people of Palestine and Kashmir and others
under occupation received a setback following the events of 9/11. Now there is zero
tolerance for armed struggle. However, the causes of unrest are political and the
search for a solution will continue through peaceful avenues.
Syed Saleem Shahzad is Bureau Chief, Pakistan, Asia Times Online. He can be
reached at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED] for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/uTGrlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List owner : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
