|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMENT
A novel way to tackle Pakistan
By Sreeram Chaulia
A new study entitled "World at Risk" by a bipartisan
American Congressional commission reveals that if one were
to
map terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) today, then "all roads would intersect in
Pakistan". It warns that the next attacks on America might
originate from Pakistan and urges the US president to take
steps on a priority basis "securing" Islamabad's biological
and nuclear weapons. Paraphrasing the report, the New Yorker
magazine commented that Pakistan as a "nation itself is a
kind of WMD".
Coming on the heels of the
Mumbai terrorist attacks, which were
planned and organized by Pakistani fundamentalists, the
American warnings reflect a major dilemma facing
international
policymakers - how to make the world safe from Pakistan? The
nature and extent of this challenge has been summed up by
former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright, "Pakistan
has everything that gives you an international migraine. It
has nuclear weapons, it has terrorism, extremists,
corruption [and is] very poor ... "
What options does the world have to counter the multiple
threats to international security and peace being posed by a
dysfunctional and dangerously adrift country? Should a
country that is itself a WMD be allowed to possess actual
WMDs, which are not only liable to fall into the "wrong"
hands but also be used by the "right" hands for emotional
blackmail?
Irfan Hussain, a leading Pakistani newspaper columnist,
recently bemoaned that "Pakistan was the only country in the
world that negotiates with a gun to its own head. Our
argument goes something like this: If you don't give us what
we need, the government will collapse and this might result
in anarchy, and a takeover by Islamic militants. Left
unstated here is the global risk these elements would pose
as they would have access to Pakistan's nuclear arsenal." A
state which threatens to explode and destroy everyone else
on the planet unless it is pampered is akin to a suicide
bomber whose message to his enemies is to change their
policies "or else".
The issue to ponder for world leaders is whether an
"international migraine" and "suicidal" state should be
allowed to possess WMDs or, for that matter, be
self-governing? Sovereignty, as an organizing principle of
world affairs, is not merely a bestower of rights but also
comes with certain responsibilities towards one's own people
and to other sovereign countries. Pakistan's track record is
one of waving the red flag and screaming SOS to assert its
rights as a sovereign country, without fulfilling the
corollary obligations.
While many developing countries may have failed to live up
to the expectations of their populations to improve living
standards and governance, Pakistan has the extra cachet of
exporting terrorism and extremist religious values to other
countries. The controversial call for "international
humanitarian intervention" over the failure of a state to
protect its own people from grave human rights abuses is
premised on what is happening within a country. To be fair,
Pakistan has not fared worse than many other developing
countries on domestic human development indices. Albright's
mention of corruption and poverty as causes for concern
about Pakistan is not relevant as these are not unique
failings.
What stands Pakistan apart, though, is its ability to breed
terrorism, extremist ideology and nuclear fecklessness and
project these outwards at the rest of the world. The correct
international response to this should not a "humanitarian
intervention" but one based on global collective will,
represented by the United Nations. Given the sui generis
mixture of threats presented by Pakistan, an equally novel
response is warranted. Since Pakistani sovereignty has been
misused to impair the sovereignty of its neighbors -
Afghanistan to the west and India on the east - the first
strategy of an international collective will should be to
circumscribe the country's sovereignty and place it under
custodianship.
After World War I, when a transfer of colonies occurred
between the losing German and Turkish empires to the
victorious European ones, a mechanism called "mandate" was
introduced at the League of Nations. Mandated territories
were deemed unfit for self-rule by the victors of the war
and taken over as de facto colonies "until such time as they
are able to stand alone". After World War II, successors of
the League mandates were rechristened "Trust Territories"
and passed on to the UN to be "prepared for independence and
majority rule".
Although mandates were thinly disguised veneers for colonial
aggrandizement, they contain the germs of an idea for
application to the now universally acknowledged "Pakistan
problem". Both mandates and trusts were believed by
practitioners at the time to be temporary waiting phases
before a land could earn the spurs of a fully sovereign
state. Although the judgement of whether these wards had the
attributes of sovereign states was left to imperialist
calculations, the notion that an international legal
agreement could decide when and whether a country should be
allowed to be sovereign is informative.
For Pakistan to be rid of its WMDs, hate preachers,
terrorists and their infrastructure, only a handover of its
sovereignty to a UN-designated custodian authority will be
effective. Since sovereignty is closely associated with
nationalism, such a grand experiment will undoubtedly meet
fierce resistance within the Pakistani establishment and
society. But there is no other way for the country's Augean
Stables to be cleaned.
Washington's pressure and protestations
from Kabul or New
Delhi have come and gone in vain for years
without any concrete change in Pakistan's behavior.
A spell of international custodianship over Pakistan is the
only feasible means for long-term transformation of the
sub-continent's problem child. Those representatives of the
Pakistani state who wish to strengthen moderation will
benefit from a handover of sovereignty to the UN because the
move promises to enhance civilian power and demilitarize
policymaking. For Pakistani civil society, which has been
struggling to counter what Harvard University professor
Jessica Stern called the "jihad culture", a decade or so of
international custodianship would open the space needed to
rebuild the country with the cement of civic consciousness
and religious tolerance. Pakistani activists should welcome
coming under a UN trust and ally with like-minded forces
pressing for this solution.
Besides Pakistani nationalism, an international campaign to
bring the country under UN custodianship is bound to run
into two stumbling blocks. The 57-member Organization of
Islamic Conference (OIC) is likely to vote as a bloc in the
UN General Assembly to stymie efforts to constrict the
foreign and domestic powers of one of its members. Pakistan
is no ordinary member of the OIC because of its possession
of the so-called "Islamic bomb" and losing a nuclear-armed
Muslim power will rankle with the OIC.
The other hurdle is
China, for which the temporary loss of
Pakistan's sovereignty will be a big blow to its strategic
vision of dominating Asia by tying down
India. The Chinese veto has been used
sparingly in the UN Security Council, but it will definitely
come down with a thump on the table if Pakistan is proposed
to be delivered to international custodianship.
Can the OIC and China be convinced by a determined
international movement to vest Pakistan's sovereignty in the
UN's trust? Can Pakistan as a nation come around to
accepting this bitter medicine as a necessary prelude to
renaissance? These questions need to be answered soon for
the sake of world peace. The longer the delay in legal
takeover of Pakistan, the greater the chances are that the "WMD
nation" will explode.
Sreeram Chaulia is a researcher on international
affairs at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public
Affairs in Syracuse,
New
York.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights
reserved. Please contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
All material on
this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form
without written permission.
© Copyright 1999 -
2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings), Ltd.
|
Head Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li
Yuen Street East, Central, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab
Kirikhan,
Thailand 77110
|
|
|
|
