|
|
Inside the New Print Edition of Our Subscriber-Only Newsletter! STABBED IN THE BACK Order CounterPunch By Email For Only $35 a Year ! Meet & Debate (Perhaps Even Date) CPers Online at CounterPunch's New Facebook Page! |
home / subscribe / donate / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
Inside the New Print Edition of Our Subscriber-Only Newsletter!
STABBED IN THE BACK
Eamonn Fingleton gives a stunning account of how the elite press – the Wall Street Journal, The Economist, the New York Times and Washington Post - pilloried US autworkers while systematically concealing the hidden subsidies which have allowed Japan and Korea to destroy Detroit. All this with the connivance of the US government. Also in our latest newsletter: Michelle Obama comes to Merced. Bill Hatch, the Balzac of the Central Valley, gives an uproarious account of Michelle’s state visit to UC’s new campus. Get your new edition today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and gear make great presents.
How the U.S. Press Helped Destroy the Auto IndustryOrder CounterPunch By Email For Only $35 a Year !
Meet & Debate (Perhaps Even Date) CPers Online at CounterPunch's New Facebook Page!
|
Today's Stories June 4, 2009 Arno J. Mayer June 3, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts Kathy Kelly Alan Farago Franklin Lamb Bill Hatch Nadia Hijab Dean Baker Binoy Kampmark Manuel Garcia, Jr. Remi Kanazi Behzad Yaghmaian Website of the Day June 2, 2009 Uri Avnery Robert Weissman Conn Hallinan Gideon Spiro Roger Burbach Dylan Quigley Dave Lindorff Ray McGovern Belén Fernández Martha Rosenberg Willie L. Pelote, Sr. Website of the Day June 1, 2009 Pam Martens Yitzhak Laor Mark Weisbrot Ramzy Baroud Saul Landau Eugenia Tsao Afshin Rattansi Debra Sweet Abdul Malik Mujahid Bill Quigley John Wright Website of the Day May 29-31, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Patrick Cockburn Vijay Prashad Gary Leupp Ray McGovern Rannie Amiri Bill Hatch Chellis Glendinning, Stephanie Mills and Kirkpatrick Sale Phyllis Pollack David Yearsley Jean-Christophe Servant Dave Lindorff James McEnteer Missy Beattie James C. Faris David Macaray Harvey Wasserman Adam Federman David Ker Thomson Mark Seth Lender Stephen Martin Joseph Nevins Sophia Mihic Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend May 28, 2009 Joan Roelofs Paul Craig Roberts Ralph Nader Mouin Rabbani Joe Bageant James McEnteer Dedrick Muhammad Richard Morse David Macaray Harvey Wasserman Website of the Day May 27, 2009 Joanne Mariner Paul Craig Roberts Walden Bello Dave Lindorff Brian M. Downing Carlos Villarreal Nadia Hijab Adam Federman Laray Polk Isabella Kenfield David Michael Green Website of the Day May 26, 2009 Manuel Garcia, Jr. Mike Whitney Sharon Smith Marjorie Cohn Dean Baker Deepankar Basu Fred Gardner Jordan Flaherty Josh Ruebner Brian Cloughley Website of the Day May 25, 2009 Diane Christian John Ross Kenneth Hartman Uri Avnery Fred Gardner Cindy Sheehan Sen. Russell Feingold Sibel Edmonds Franklin Lamb Dave Lindorff Daniel Wolff Website of the Day May 22-24, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Michael Teitelman Mike Whitney Ray McGovern Sonia Cardenas / Clive Hamilton Conn Hallinan Fred Gardner Carlo Cristofori Dean Baker Rannie Amiri Andy Worthington David Macaray Nadia Hijab Franklin Lamb Ted Newcomen David Ker Thomson David Rosen Mark Weisbrot Robert Fantina Heather Gray Farzana Versey Chris Genovali Ron Jacobs Jay Diamond Dr. Susan Block Ben Sonnenberg David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend May 21, 2009 Jeffrey St. Clair / Paul Craig Roberts Chris Floyd Gerald Paoli Zach Mason Uri Avnery Andy Worthington Niranjan Ramakrishnan Norman Solomon Dave Lindorff Website of the Day May 20, 2009 Michael Hudson Gary Leupp Michael D. Yates Jonathan Cook Peter Lee Binoy Kampmark Peter Zinn William Loren Katz Gary Lapon Trudy Bond Website of the Day May 19, 2009 Kristoffer Rehder Mike Whitney Ray McGovern Vijay Prashad Mirjam Hadar Meerschwam Mustafa Barghouthi Andy Worthington Binoy Kampmark John Walsh David Macaray Website of the Day May 18, 2009 Dave Lindorff Abdul Malik Mujahid Jonathan Cook Ben Rosenfeld Patrick Cockburn Ralph Nader Stephen Soldz Eugenia Tsao Walter Brasch Roberto Rodriguez Charlotte Laws Website of the Day May 15-17, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair David Rosen Mike Whitney Bruce Page Jeremy Scahill Fred Gardner Tom Barry Mats Svensson Ramzy Baroud Mark Engler Mark Weisbrot Farzana Versey Ron Jacobs Hannah Wolfe Cal Winslow David Macaray Christopher Brauchli Mark Seth Lender Robert Fantina David Ker Thomson Stephen Martin Charles R. Larson Chase Madar Kim Nicolini David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend May 14, 2009 Michael Hudson Andy Worthington Paul Craig Roberts Jonathan Cook Ray McGovern Lance Selfa David Green Dave Lindorff Frida Berrigan Sue Udry Website of the Day May 13, 2009 Brian M. Downing Gareth Porter Robert Sandels Ricardo Alarcón Eric Walberg Dave Lindorff Deepak Tripathi William S. Lind Kevin Zeese Franklin Lamb Website of the Day May 12, 2009 Gary Leupp Richard Neville Wajahat Ali Dean Baker Franklin Lamb Norman Solomon Paul Craig Roberts Lisa M. Hamilton Bob Fitrakis / David Macaray Website of the Day May 11, 2009 Andrea Peacock Michael Hudson Patrick Cockburn Ralph Nader John Kelly Saul Landau Dave Lindorff David Michael Green Anthony Papa Paul Krassner Website of the Day
|
June 4, 2009 Is It Really a War on Pasthuns?Clearing Misconceptions on Pakistan's War in SwatBy AYESHA IJAZ KHAN Amid all the conflicting voices that report on the Pakistani military’s ongoing operation in Swat, it is difficult to ascertain what the reality is. There are however a few misconceptions that must be cleared. Is this Pakistan’s war? This is most definitely Pakistan’s war, but those targeting Pakistan and its people are not always Pakistani. A multinational conglomerate of Arabs, Uzbeks, Chechens, Turkomen along with Pakistani militants are responsible for the insurgency in Pakistan’s northwest and for terrorist activities in the rest of Pakistan. As their power grew, they were joined by local criminal networks, which assisted them in targeted killings and kidnapping for ransom. Those most often targeted are law enforcement personnel, and Pakistan’s police forces have borne the brunt of the attacks. There is widespread realization in Pakistan today that these anti-state elements need to be eliminated for Pakistan’s own sake and those who continue to speak of this operation as “America’s war” or “America’s war for which Pakistan is being paid” are but a fraction of the population. Primarily such rhetoric is spewed from a few members of the right-wing media and bitter politicians, like those representing the Jamaat Islami and playboy-turned-born-again Muslim, Imran Khan. Interestingly, Mr. Imran Khan’s party, at its zenith, won one parliamentary seat, and the Jamaat Islami has never done well in elections either, with the exception of the 2002 election, which is widely believed to have been rigged. Pakistan’s military, under General Kiyani, and the ruling civilian coalition of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) in the centre, along with the Awami National Party (ANP) in the North West Frontier Province have taken collective ownership of the war. The main opposition party, Pakistan Muslim League-N (N for Nawaz Sharif) has also backed the military operation. Public opinion, as reflected by the elected political parties, is eager for the military to eradicate the militants, albeit with as little collateral damage as possible. Is this a war against the Pashtuns? It is sometimes incorrectly stated that the militant insurgency in Pakistan’s northwest (Pashtun dominated areas) is a symbol of Pashtun nationalism. There is no truth to this. As Professor Mohammed Taqi writes, “This is actually the cultural result of militarized madrassas and refugee camps where Pashtun children were forced to grow up during and after the Soviet-Afghan war in the eighties. Many of these people have never really been true citizens of Pakistan or Afghanistan and nor have they ever really experienced Pashtun tribal society.” It is quite amazing when the likes of Fareed Zakaria claim on CNN that the current military operation in Pakistan will spark ethnic fires between Pashtuns and Punjabis. His statement represents a complete lack of understanding. First, the military operation is being done at the behest of the ANP, which is the foremost representative of the Pashtun sentiment in Pakistan. Like other innocent civilians in the NWFP, members of the ANP too have suffered beheadings, kidnappings and torture at the hands of the militants and are fully backing the military operation in their province so that the writ of the government can be established. What Mr. Zakaria also does not understand is that the Paksitan Army has a strong Pashtun contingent. Therefore, it is not as if a Punjabi army is waging a war on a Pashtun insurgency. The insurgency is often led by Saudis and Libyans (as demonstrated by the recent capture of several foreign militants, whose passports manifest surprisingly lax control at Iranian checkpoints) while the Pakistan Army works in close collaboration with the Frontier Constabulary, consisting exclusively of Pashtuns. It is relevant to quote from two opinion pieces recently written in Pakistan’s widely read English daily, The News (to which I also regularly contribute). Noor Khan, an internally displaced person (IDP) from Swat, writes:
Zubair Torwali, an IDP from Bahrain (a scenic town in upper Swat) writes:
Do the people in Swat want to be governed by Sharia or Islamic law? Like elsewhere in Pakistan, the people of Swat are religious and very defensive about Islam. However, like elsewhere in Pakistan, when it comes time to vote, they vote for secular parties. The 2008 election was no exception, when they voted overwhelmingly for ANP candidates. Much is made about the fact that the people of Swat lived under Islamic law before they became a part of Pakistan and hence want to return to it. While it is true that the people of Swat want justice and opportunity, running water and electricity, and a chance to send their children to school, whether they are provided these basics under Islamic or secular law is of little concern to them. In fact, given voting patterns, it can be argued that they have more faith in acquiring these rights by voting for secular political parties. After all, the Islamic parties make Sharia a key electoral promise, yet they perform poorly in elections. It is important also to reflect upon the history of Swat. Prior to the Partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, Swat was a princely state, ruled by a wali. Although the Wali was inclined towards Sufism, he introduced a legal system that was a combination of Islamic and customary Pashtun laws. Yet, not only did he build infrastructure and schools promoting both education and tourism, but also legally sanctioned bars and “dancing girls”. At the time of Partition, the Wali of Swat opted to join Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s Pakistan voluntarily, but until 1969, Swat remained a semi-autonomous state with its own police and small army. General Ayub Khan, who ruled Pakistan between 1958 and 1969, married his beautiful daughter, Nasim, to Captain Miangul Aurangzeb, who was the wali ahad (crown prince) of Swat, and was serving Ayub Khan as his aide-de-camp. Although the marriage was a catalyst to merging semi-autonomous Swat into the rest of Pakistan, it wasn’t until Ayub Khan was asked to step down, that his successor, General Yahya, dethroned the Wali of Swat. Subsequently, the ruling family merged into Pakistan quite readily, remaining active in national politics, but the people of Swat suffered from the inability of successive governments to fill the void in governance left by dethroning the Wali. What is required therefore is to bring the legal system of the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (PATA), of which Swat is a part, and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in line with that of the rest of Pakistan and to focus on enhancing a poor law enforcement structure. And although the legal system in Pakistan in general could do with much reform, it must be uniform all over the country so as to avoid feelings of discrimination. Romanticism with the past is not the answer. The Wali of Swat may have administered the state passably, modernizing it in his dream to create a “Switzerland of Asia”, but there were also repressive practices. Practices that would not go down well in a society aspiring for democratic norms and civil liberties. For example, the family of Afzal Khan Lala, one of Pakistan’s most respected politicians who hail from Swat, was expelled from their native land by the former Wali because he considered their influence in Swat a challenge to his despotic rule. It is interesting also to note how Afzal Khan Lala and Miangul Aurangzeb (both in their eighties) differ on the Swat operation. In an interview with Azhar Masood in Foreign Policy Journal, the former wali ahad of Swat, Miangul Aurangzeb, dubiously sits on the fence, stating of the military operation: “I neither approve it nor disapprove it.” Afzal Khan Lala takes a clear position. Having suffered the loss of two grandsons and been ambushed by the Taliban himself, he remains steadfast in his defiance, stating categorically: “The Taliban movement is not an ideological movement. All the men of Sufi Muhammad and Maulana Fazlullah are loyal to Baitullah Mehsud. In fact, all the Taliban are loyal to Mullah Omar and most of them are criminals, looters, bandits, car snatchers, absconders and drug runners. He is the centre of gravity both for Pakistani and Afghan Taliban.” When asked if it was a class struggle, he responded: “In class struggle between haves and have-nots, you do not become a criminal. You do not harm innocent people, snatch vehicles, dump arms and ammunition; you get popular through the force of ideology and not force. Taliban are terrorists and have no ideology.” Is it possible to defeat the Taliban? Yes, it is possible for the Pakistan Army to defeat the militants. There are plenty of stories of the bravery and heroism of Pashtun fighters who are helped along by the rugged terrain in Pakistan’s northwest such that no invader could capture these freedom-loving people. That may well be true, but it is only true for foreign invaders. So Americans should beware. But the Pakistan Army is no foreign invader. They know the terrain as well as the militants. The historic Ambela Pass, which could not be taken by successive foreign intruders and led to their defeat at the hands of the Pashtuns, was taken by the Pakistani security forces, assisted by the Frontier Constabulary, in a matter of days. So, in the case of Pakistan’s own war, it is much more a matter of will than ability. In the past, during Musharraf’s time, the fight was often not sincere and plagued with half-baked “peace deals” because Musharraf and his cronies believed that if the Islamic threat was eradicated altogether, it would be impossible for Musharraf to present himself as the bulwark against terrorism and continue to win the west’s support. As a result, operations were conducted with duplicity and alliances were entered into with political forces that supported extremist ideology. Presently, the army, under General Kiyani, appears sincere in its efforts and not distracted by competing concerns of maintaining a political hold on the country. The politicians, for their part, are backing the army and consolidating public opinion behind their efforts. The most difficult part is not the military operation, but rehabilitation of the displaced and rebuilding of the destroyed infrastructure. In this, Pakistan must be helped. Presently, of the 2.5 million IDPs, only 200,000 are living in camps set up by the government and various relief agencies. The rest are staying with relatives and friends. The Pakistani people are very generous even with excruciatingly limited resources. The state and the international community must ensure that the burden taken on by these friends and relatives does not break their backs. Aid must flow to Pakistan. But, given the unfortunate corrupt state of government affairs, it must be tied to strict requirements of transparency and accountability. The international community should also take a special interest in infrastructure projects for the affected areas where a lot has been demolished as a result of this “grim but necessary war”, as Cyril Almeida, one of Pakistan’s finest columnists, remarked. Building an expensive “super embassy” in Pakistan, as reported by some media sources, will do little good and much harm. Not only will it give credence to the few that claim “this is America’s war”, but it will also lead Pakistanis in general to conclude that America is simply motivated by imperialist designs. Stabilizing and developing Pakistan is beneficial to the world at large. The US also owes it to Pakistan to help it out of this quagmire, to make up for its abdication of responsibility in the aftermath of the Soviet defeat. Hillary Clinton’s remarks in this context are gracious, honest and welcome, but they must be matched with appropriate action. Ayesha Ijaz Khan is a London-based lawyer and political commentator and can be contacted via her website www.ayeshaijazkhan.com .
|
Now Available from CounterPunch Books! Spell Albuquerque:
Waiting for
Lightning
|
