THE YEAR AFTER……

DR. TARIQ RAHMAN

The year 2002 is coming to an end. It is the year which felt the pain after the orgy of violence which was 2001. And just as the morning after a night of heavy drinking gives one a headache, this year in one of aches in the body of the world. In a sense, then, 2001 was a watershed in the history of the world after which we are living on a ticking time bomb---- any moment can lead to another orgy of blood and terror.

In a sense there have been other watersheds too: the years 1914 and 1939, when the two world wars started, were watersheds. And in recent times 1990 when the gulf war took place was a watershed. The world wars proved for the first time after the invention of the gunpowder, that violence in modern warfare can be so much more that the whole history of warfare will appear like peace before it. The end of world war II, with the obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, brought to us a new horror---- the nuclear bomb. And along with it the consciousness of living on a time bomb; a doomed planet; a world where nobody was safe. This was a new kind of consciousness because dynastic wars let most people alone; nationalistic wars, in theory, involved everybody but not everybody actually fought. As modernity increased the state’s power, all young men could, in theory, be drafted into the fighting forces. As airplanes came in, the security of all town dwellers came to an end. With nuclear weapons, even villagers stand in fear of being killed by poisoning or the horrendous nuclear winter or some such grisly horror. In short, our so called ‘progress’ has made us, as a species, more insecure than we ever were. The Gulf War ended the bipolar world. Having a single source of military might combined with tremendous power of destruction is a new even in human history and who knows what, coupled with the idea of globalization this will result into. It has, to begin with, made the world very insecure. What happened in 2001 has added a new dimension to this insecurity.

A book by Fred Halliday entitled Two Hours that Changed the World (2002) make the point that the ‘war on terror’ ‘is in many respects obscure, that it has no clear end or mechanisms’. This is a very significant change. Earlier wars, however monstrous, had clearly defined targets and these were states. Now that the USA has taken on ‘war on terror’ the definition of terror is very much what that country gives it. So far the USA has declared war an the Al-Qaida group which has claimed -- or is said to have claimed—to have attacked targets in areas on far flung as Bali and Mombasa . If the target is so elusive, the winning of such a war in the conventional sense is not possible. The world will continue to live in constant peril. That, indeed, is what has happened in 2002 as bombs went off in Bali and our own Karachi and so on.

Another effect of 2001, which came to be felt in 2002, is that humanitarian, liberal, democratic values have shrunk. For instance it had been established that countries will not attack each other without sufficient cause. In 2001 the Usa established that a country could attack another country killing innocent people to chase a single person or change a regime. The Taliban were bad rulers; they were cruel; they were oppressive but international law, as understood earlier, did not allow them to be bombed. In 2001 this principle was demolished. Now the USA claims that it can attack Iraq on the assumption that Iraq is a threat to it. India too moved its forces on Pakistan’s border for much of 2002.because attacks on it are carried out by groups within Pakistan. Israel attacks Palestinian cities with impunity because some terrorist groups from there, or thought to be from there, attack Israel. In short, the new aggressive thinking is that violence by non-state actors or even the threat or possibility of violence is sufficient justification for war or threat of war.

Within countries, liberal values are under attack. Most countries have passed laws which interfere with personal freedom and terrorize citizens in the name of security. Within 2002 attacks on Muslims increased worldwide, especially in the USA and even in Australia. Even airport searches are so humiliating, especially in the USA, that one feels that the apartheid is sneaking back through the loophole of security. This is not a minor change. It is a fundamental change in thinking. The idea of citizens’ rights and personal freedom were based on the assumption that they are more important than security. It was after centuries of struggle against the security-dominated thinking of kings, ministers, generals and police officers that the confidence of letting people accept freedom was born. Now that principle is under attack and, as usual, in the name of security itself.

Another change, and one which touches us more closely, is the erosion of sovereignty and national honour. As FBI agents capture Pakistanis within Pakistan; as they crackdown upon Al-Qaeda agents; as they comb the tribal areas for terrorists------- the people grow more and more resentful. This has already strengthened the religious right in Pakistan. It threatens to polarise our society further if the USA attacks Iraq. Slowly the right wings’ cry that the West has launched a crusade upon Muslims is taking over the dominant worldview of Pakistanis from almost all classes and all urban walks of life at least. This too is legacy of 2001.

We in Pakistan have been affected very deeply. Apart from the uncertainties of the international order, we have our own uncertainties too. First, India now claims that it can act as aggressively, at least in theory, as the United States can when it feels threatened. This means that the work of extremists or rogue elements can bring a whole subcontinent to the brink of nuclear annihilation. Secondly, we have been given a very uncertain political situation. Military governments came to stay and none of the generals who have ever taken power in Pakistan have ever handed it over voluntarily. So, there is nothing new in ushering in a civilian government while keeping the power of ultimate dismissal firmly in the hands of the military and the presidency. What is new is that this arrangement is sought to be given constitutional cover. This will mean a permanent subjugation of civilian rulers to the military and this we have had in practice but never in theory. This is something new which the year 2002 brought us. Even more alarming is the fact that we have a government which is challenged at its very inception. It rules by the votes of a handful of people who can change loyalties bringing about its fall. Moreover, it seems to be challenged in the NWFP and Balochistan too where the religious parties emerge as new centres of power. This too is new in Pakistan. While the clergy has had street power earlier, it is only the resentment against American attacks on Afghanistan and the military’s alliance with the USA which has made the clergy electorally relevant. Does this mean that this year our politics has changed for ever? It is difficult to say but it is clear that we have a new factor and one which will create much tension sooner or later. And now if the military dismisses the religious parties we may have the kind of conflict which many countries, worst of all Algeria, are witnessing. But for the happenings of 2001 this is not what we would have seen in 2002.

In short, we leave behind a year in which the cleavages and uncertainties of living have become clear. We do not know what 2003 will bring for us. If the world’s most powerful decision-makers want to reverse the slide towards permanent insecurity and conflict, they will have to stop the war on terrorism!. They will have to remove the reasons for resentment among Muslims and other people. They will have to pass down their wealth to the people of the developing world and not through their corrupt elites who siphon it off, but in other, more transparent, ways. This requires a new kind of thinking and there is no evidence that the human race has become wiser even when it stares uncertainty right in the face. One can only wish that 2003 brings peace but how wishful and unrealistic it sound-------!