QUESTION OF SECURIYT AND STRATEGY

Prof. khurshid Ahmad

Professor Khurshid formerly director general of Islamic Foundation, Leicester and deputy chairman of Planning Commission, Pakistan is presently chairman. In­stitute of Policy Studies, Islamabad.

IMPACT INTERNATIONAL: In Pak­istan, the Middle East and the West, everyone seems to be outraged at the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. But how substantial are the dangers to the security of the southwest Asian region?

KHURSHID AHMAD: There is no doubt that the present situation is alarming and portentious, but it would be too simplistic to assume that this threat has appeared like a bolt from the blue on the 27 December 1979 Russian encroachments in Afghanistan did not begin on that date. Soviet in- fluence over the Zahir Shah’s regime, it’s Involvements in the Daud takeover (1974), in Taraki’s so-called coup d’état (1978) and then Amin’s drama of Taraki’s overthrow are important ele­ments in the making of the scenario. Afghanistan was ac­cepted by the West as Kussia’s political hinterland. The December invasion was made possible because the world, in­cluding the Third World and the Muslim world was not worried enough about the systematic liquidation of Afghanistan’s in­dependence.

In the first phase, the Soviets brought up and carried on with un­representative but pro-Russian dictatorships. As those who were opposing these secular com­munist regimes were Islamists, the world had no sympathy or support for them.

Why this should be so?

It seems that when there is a choice between Islam and Com­munism, the western countries lend to side with their own communist half-brothers and forget about all the lip-service to the will and wishes of the people’. However, another factor which helped to precipitate direct Russian intervention was the panicky arrogance with which America reacted to Iran’s quest for genuine independence. There may be two opinions as to how not to treat the diplomatic spies’, but there must not be two opinions about the American handling of the Iranian revolution.

Till the very last moment America tried to support the stooge-regimes of Shah and Shahpur Bakhtiar. Even after the success of the revolution and its formal recognition, the new popular republic was not accepted in good grace. There was no evidence of any sincere readjust­ment and efforts to build a new equation with Islam and Its socio­economic and political ethos. In­stead American policy, sup­ported by her European allies, has been to unseat the Islamic revolutionary forces and engineer some kind of a counter-revolution.

So while the US government and the western media were busy in un­leashing forces of hatred against Iran and the Muslims in general, the Soviets decided to accept the invitation to walk into neighboring Afghanistan.

So what is the final shape of power relations today?

Stark and cruel in spite of the international chorus of rejoicings on detente, multi-polarity’ and end of colonialism’, it is difficult to ignore the sad and crude reality that the big powers continue to look upon the world in terms of their respective areas of Influence. The Russian approach is as steeped in this neo-imperialist framework as that of the other superpower. Russian military operations In Hungary and Czechoslovakia and its efforts to build its power-bases in Cuba, Ethiopia, Angola, South Yemen and Afghanistan are mere details of this framework.

Despite the so-called Vietnam debacle, American policy has un­dergone little objective changes, as we see it in Latin America, in its use of Israel and Iran (“under the Shah) as bastions of Its influence and now the concern to make Pakistan as the demarca­tion line between the Russian and American areas of influence’.

Where do you go from here?

First and foremost Is the ques­tion of protection of smaller countries from aggression against their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is the principle on which the entire edifice of the U.N. rests, and on which the process of peace­keeping operates. When Russia blatantly violated this principle in Czechoslovakia and shamefacedly advanced the Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty’ it was not effectively challenged and rebut­ted. India violated the sovereignty of Pakistan in 1971 and the world’s response was lukewarm. Tan­zania invaded Uganda and still holds it under its suzerainty yet the western world blesses this ag­gression.

The world would have to discard its double standards and protect this principle with con­solidated might, if the sovereignty and independence of the smaller nations are to be protected. Because violation of the sovereignty of one country is like violating the sovereignty of all. The Quran has expounded the principle that murdering one man is like murdering the entire human race.

Obviously Russia seeks to push to the Arabian Sea and towards the energy sources in the Middle East, first, to threaten the essen­tial supplies of the West and secondly to care for its own future needs. This neatly fits into the Russian/Communist dream of world domination. These aspects are being highlighted In the West and do contain quite a large grain of truth.

But there is also an important Ideological dimension to the problem. The Russians, I think, are not simply seeking access to warm waters, they also want to pre-empt and suppress the Islamic resurgence around them. Muslims constitute about one- fourth of the Russian population. The Islamic revolution in Iran, the emergence of Islamic revolutionary resistance to the left secular dictatorship in Afghanistan and the prospects of Islamic rule in Pakistan are seen as a potent threat to communist hegemony In Central Asia. Ob­viously they are not afraid of the military power; they are con­cerned about the Ideological dimension of Islam as a com­prehensive and moral social order.

But is the western percep­tion of Islam any different?

Unfortunately not there is no welcoming of Islam as a force against atheistic communism. On the other hand they seem eager to drown this force in the murky waters of cold war.

If this is your appreciation, how do you think the chal­lenge of the situation can be met? Particularly what is your reaction to the American response to these developments and her offer of military and economic aid to Pakistan?

I would be very explicit with you. It is my considered opinion, which Is based not merely on study and reflection spread over a long period, but also on first hand handling of the socio-economic problems of Pakistan as Deputy Chairman of the Planning Com­mission. That the strategy of growth through foreign aid’ has miserably failed in Pakistan, as also in Turkey and in a host of other countries. If anyone thinks that by repeating the exercises on which the country staked its fate in the late fifties and early sixties, the Pakistani nation can face this challenge. I am afraid he is sadly mistaken. If history has any lesson to teach it is very clear no repetition of the earlier strategies that have failed to deliver the goods. There is no sense in swinging from one extreme to the other. We had to pass through a very painful process to disengage ourselves from the American connection of the past and there seems no justification to turn back towards that broken reed.

I also feel that security cannot be achieved by tying oneself to the apron strings of a world power. Much water has flown down the Indus, as it has all over the world. The bi-polar world of the fifties has now given way to a world in which two world powers co-exist with other poles represented’ by China, Japan and Western Europe. Third World is also seeking its independent destiny. The Muslim world is trying to come of its own. Pakistan has gradually moved towards non- alignment and it would be a step backwards to reverse this process.

From the viewpoint of practical politics too mere world power patronage has not provided enough protection to smaller countries. Vietnam is not the only example of this. Taiwan, Cam­bodia and Iran are not irrelevant. Israel in spite of its special relationship with the United States, refused to base its strategy on American guarantees as sketched in Nixon-Kissinger proposals. Turkey hinged its ex­istence on its alliance with the US and NATO, but when the moment of truth came in Cyprus, Turkey was abandoned even at the cost of weakening the most strategic plank of NATO less is said about Pakistan s own experience of US commitments of the past, the better. In view of all these con­siderations efforts to seek security, primarily and mainly by administrative commitments of a world power cannot be considered as a safe choice.

What about the Carter Doctrine?

In the first place, the objectives of the United States in confronting Russia in West Asia and those of Pakistan may not converge. America is using the present situation to seek military, presence in the area and ensure its hold on the supply of essential raw materials for the West. The so-called Carter Doctrine’ of con­taining Hussain expansionism has its own ambiguities and uncer­tainties. The Truman Doctrine of containment was materialized through military alliances and an international development strategy although this approach paid dividends in Europe the strategy in Third World miserably failed How far a Carter Doctrine is going to be different from its predecessors no one is caring to clarify. And what would be ‘mor­tality role’ of commitments once American media turns against a people or rediscovers the value of the fives of American boys if their lives are threatened in other lands” What about big powers wishing to dictate their own values and system upon the people they claim to protect.

Ruling out direct align­ment with the US and accep­tance of foreign aid strategy what options are left to a country like Pakistan, tightly cornered by an aggressive superpower?

That is a very important ques­tion. I am not opposing external assistance and cooperation altogether but am against adopting big power aid as the mainstay of security and develop­ment. In fact ‘aid’ is a misnomer. The element of grant in what goes as foreign aid is almost non­existent. Pakistan has to acquire military and other technology from other countries and we are eager to get it at a reasonable price. Pakistan did not boycott American supplies. America un­ilaterally discontinued essential supplies and the nation realized the risks in depending on one major source alone.

It must be realized that the solution to the dangers that beset us are not short-term. The problems are basic and their solu­tions are possible only in the framework of a long-term national policy. We would like to have friendly relations with America and other Western countries and have mutual economic and technological cooperation but not to develop a relationship of obligate dependence. We expect cooperation from others if they see that their own objectives con­verge with ours. But we do not believe that being small is a dirty word and smaller countries have no right to equal independence, sovereignty and national honor and the right to live according to their own values. We should seek a new framework of relationship with other countries, including big powers. We want to diversify our sources of supply and to acquire, not just finished products, but technologies that should enable us to produce what we need.

Secondly, we believe that the right course for Pakistan and other Muslim countries is to seek collective security and build col­lective self-reliance. The mainstay of this arrangement has to be Pakistan, Iran, Turkey and the Arab world. There are geo­political and economic factors, even compulsions, which point towards an integrated Muslim world as a third force in the world. A strategy for human and physical resource development is needed to really develop this region into an independent bloc. The possibilities of having a mul­tilateral defence force of the Muslim countries also deserve to be examined and pursued. A common fund to finance economic and military requirements of the area is also a pressing need.

Thirdly, the real strength to meet an external challenge of this type with which Pakistan is con­fronted can come only through ef­fective mobilization of the national resources within the country and through genuine reconstruction of the society on Islamic principles. It is through the active participation of the people in the processes of society and through giving all these processes an effective ideological orientation that the hidden sources of vitality can be dis­covered and harnessed. The present situation make it im­perative that we abandon the stratagem of house-top declara­tions of Islamization and adopt an all-comprehensive strategy of genuine Islamization by purging national life of anti-Islamic values and practices and es­tablishing the Islamic social and economic order ensuring freedom, justice, moral uplift, military mobilization of the people and the common man’s participation in all areas of decision-making and programme implementation. This calls for a new type of national mobilization and ideological reconstruction. And it is through this programme that the nation can be prepared to meet the challenge facing it.

But we are talking about a collective security for the Muslim world. Security In fact is collective.

Yes, a similar strategy is needed for the ideological development of other Muslim countries. This would enable the Muslim world to become a con­temporary model of the Islamic culture and civilization and func­tion as a third force.

You almost seem to exclude cooperation with the non-Muslim states?

On the contrary, within the framework provided by the strategies outlined above, Pakistan, as indeed other Muslim countries, should build a network of international cooperation with other countries, particularly China, Japan, Europe, America and the Third World. We should actively seek — and I am sure it would come — a sympathetic un­derstanding of our approach to the problems of humanity and our vision of the future. Instead of becoming a fuel for the cold war, let us adopt a set of policies that may give us a place of respect in the world. I would not exclude the possibilities of dialogue with Russia and other communist countries. But we must guard and preserve the flexibility and maneuverability which we have acquired at a great cost.

You suggested that Pakistan and Iran be the cor­nerstone of this collective self-reliance model. Yet what are the chances of Its adop­tion in view of the US- Russian rivalry in the area?

I rate the chances of the succes­sful adoption of this strategy im­mense. My worry, however, is that there are interested parties which are trying to drive Iran towards Russia and to even use some Muslim government to alienate Iran from some other Muslim countries. This is very mischievous and Muslims must be aware of its sinister implications. There are suggestions that let Afghanistan be the border line for Russian influence and Iran and Pakistan the frontier of American influence. Even some kind of US- Russian understanding on these lines is being hawked about. But it is both impudent and sinister. The forthcoming Islamic Foreign Ministers Conference must address itself to this problem. And Pakistan has a vital role to play in this respect.

There is also an immediate situation.

As to the immediate situation, international pressure on Russia should be strengthened to the point where it withdraws its forces from Afghanistan. Greater the pressure, less are the chances of escalation of Russian influence in the area. All moral and material aid should be given to the Islamic Higher in Afghanistan. And a multilateral Islamic defence force should be created to protect the vital fron­tiers of the Islamic world. Pakistan and Iran constitute the fortresses of Islam and the whole Muslim world should unite to defend them emerge on the world crisis map overnight, but it is also a fact, sad and painful at that, that the OIC, had hitherto failed to see and recognize that there did exist an actual and potential problem in Afghanistan. Some uncharitable critics have remarked that even in the present crisis, but for the strong US reaction the OIC might not have acted at all. Nevertheless the 42-member organization took one full month to hold an emergency meeting — two weeks after the 152-member UN general assembly had met and voted, 104 to 18 with 18 absten­tions, calling for immediate, un­conditional and total withdrawal of ‘the foreign troops’ in Afghanistan.

The UN vote too was a telling indication of the ‘solidarity’ of the OIC bloc Of the OIC states although only South Yemen, apart from Afghanistan’, voted against the resolution seven (Algeria, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali. North Yemen, Syria and Uganda) abstained and four (Chad, Comoros, Libya and Sudan) absented themselves from the meeting. Sudan’s abstention was explained as an act of in­discipline on the part of its delegate who, it is said, has been recalled. The Libyans said they had absented because they wanted to protest against the world community’s indifference when Uganda was similarly at­tacked by Tanzania early last year. Such a protest might have made sense if Tanzania had been aggressed against, but why punish the poor Muslims of Afghanistan?

Subsequent to the vote at the UN a conference of ‘the stead­fastness and confrontation states’ (Algeria, Libya, South Yemen, Syria and the PLO) met hurriedly in Damascus and asked for the postponement of the Islamic foreign ministers’ conference as well as to change the venue from Islamabad to Jeddah. Why? On 26 January, that is the day the con­ference is set to convene, was the date for ‘normalization’ of rela­tions between Egypt and Israel. It is impossible to understand this logic, unless one takes it to mean that ‘we mustn’t “celebrate” two tragedies at the same time’!

‘Foreign minister’ Qaddumi of the PLO which aims at es­tablishing a ‘secular’ state of mini Palestine with Islamic support and Muslim people’s funds is reported to have said that ‘the Soviet Union has given dis­interested help to Afghanistan in its struggle against reaction and for independence’ and argued that anyway they could not afford to oppose their ‘friend”, the Soviet Union. The assumption seems to be that probably after finishing their business in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula; the Soviets would be able to divert all their friendly might to help establish that mini secular state. Begin wil­ling! One would ignore the state­ments of people like Hawatima or Habash, but since Mr Qaddumi happens to represent the main Palestinian movement Al-Fatah, Muslim opinion is liable to ask itself whether these are the kind of people whom it can entrust the task of liberation of the sacred land of Palestine.

This brief review of the realities of Islamic solidarity is not to suggest any pessimism because once it is possible to recognize the negatives of a situa­tion one can, with some hard work, overcome them. Supposing all those OIC states who did not support the withdrawal resolution at the UN either by voting against or abstaining and absenting plus half a dozen more did not join in any programme of unified political action to support the right of the Muslim people of Afghanistan to establish a sovereign, independent and non- aligned state of their own choice, even without these states the Russian superpower can be made to pack up from Afghanistan. What the Muslim leadership needs — and is unfortunately short of — is faith and determina­tion — as the Iranian leadership has shown despite aspects which one need not agree with. Given this faith and determination, the Muslim world can establish an equation of respectable and con­structive relationship with both power blocs without becoming the ward or stooge of one or the other superpower.

It is also important that while addressing itself to the problem of Soviet annexation of Afghanistan, the conference should get over its inexplicable self-inhibition and also consider the plight and problem of the 50 million or more Muslims under Soviet rule who have been consigned to lead a life of right less ness since the Bolshevik occupation of their ter­ritories hardly half a century ago. Perhaps the blatant military oc­cupation of Afghanistan and a threatened Russian expansion further southwest and southeast are the price of indifference to the plight of their brethren in Central Asia that the Muslim world is today forced to pay. This is a problem which cannot be solved by appeasement.

In any case, constraints and weaknesses notwithstanding, never before has the Islamic Conference been called upon to address itself to such a challeng­ing task as it faces today? This is a challenge which it cannot afford to fail. But insofar as the people of Afghanistan are concerned they should learn to recognize the Muslim world realities and try to fashion their strategy and their struggle on the basis of im­provisation and mobilization of their own local resources. In fact guerrilla warfare techniques have developed mainly in response to a situation of no or minimal exter­nal resources. They have already set a great example in unmatched velour and resistance and it is not insignificant that even after the arrival of the Soviet forces, they have been neither demoralized nor deterred. This assessment is not based on ‘rebel’ claims, but on the East German aid rushed to Kabul last week. This consisted of medicines medical and nursing equipment and blood plasma.