US & South Asia - Articles

Asking for an active role in the War against Iraq, The Nation, in its editorial (“War clouds� 10 February 2003) observed, “the Pakistan government's careful neutrality, and its wishwashy talk of abiding by the Security Council's decisions are decidedly unwise and timid. Unlike the slew of Eastern European and small European states backing the USA, Pakistan has definite interests in the Middle East, both in terms of oil supply and overseas Pakistanis, which will not be served by a war. The people of Pakistan share fraternal sentiments for fellow Muslims in their hour of need. Pakistan itself is a Security Council member, and is there to help shape decisions, not to drift along with the tide of opinion.� In it’s another editorial, The Nation (“A case for peace� 17 February 2003) commented “Pakistan, a Muslim country, has a great responsibility as a Council member. It cannot satisfy its public, overwhelmingly against the US mala fide intentions, by simply emphasizing the need to disarm Iraq, as the Bush-Musharraf telephonic talk did. The USA is now taking the position that, even if a fresh resolution is vetoed, if it has the support of eight other members, it will feel morally justified to act as it pleases. Pakistan must not allow itself to be pressured into providing the USA the magic figure.�

Asking for Pakistan to vote against the US, Ahmad Faruqui wrote (“Pakistan’s difficult choice at the UNSC� Daily Times, 18 February 2003) “A vote against war would improve Pakistan’s credibility in the entire world, and lead to a more durable relationship with the US. If Iraq is in non-compliance with UNSC resolutions, the blame should be placed on Saddam Hussein… The Iraqi people have suffered enough during the past quarter century for the sins of their leader. There is no reason to add to their woes by raining cruise missiles and bombs on them. Placed in perspective, Pakistan’s choice is not all that difficult�

Rejecting the US accusations against Saddam and Iraq, MB Naqvi wrote, (“What sense can Iraq war make?� The News, 12 February 2003) “Iraq poses no noticeable threat to any of its neighbours after its adventure against Kuwait -- perhaps a sting operation in itself -- and ten years of constant aerial bombardment by US and UK and the UN trade embargoes. Saddam's links with Islamic fundamentalism can be laughed out of court. A Baathist regime stands for a secular Arab Nationalism; the two simply do not gel. Saddam's record vis-à-vis religious extremism is one of brutal suppression. He simply cannot be tarred with the brush of Islamic terrorism. The question is: are the US Administration leaders being carried away by a xenophobic hysteria that has come to grip America or are they trying to intensify that hysteria as a cover for their designs.�

Naqvi also make an interesting case on why the US targets Saddam. According to him (“What sense can Iraq war make?� The News, 12 February 2003) “Saddam is the only Arab tyrant, out of so many, who is bankrolling the Palestinian Intifada. His removal will dry up the only vital support the Palestinian resistance is getting. It can be foreseen as speedily collapsing. Sharon's Israel will then face no cognizable opposition to whatever dispensation it imposes on the hapless Palestinians. New Palestinian refugees -- those left after Sharon-Netanyahu types have implemented their final solution -- will then be other Arab regimes' problem.�

Munir Attaullah, rejecting the “oil theory� as a reason for US war against Iraq, wrote (“War on Iraq has got nothing to do with oil,� Daily Times, 21 February 2003) “So why is America hell-bent on its adventure when neither WMD nor oil are serious issues? Because, as Dick Cheney let slip in an unguarded moment during a BBC interview, “It is do-able�. Plus of course � believe it or not � petulance.�

Iffat Idris Malik comments (“A War cloaked in hypocrisy�, Dawn, 24 February 2003), “there is neither a terrorism, nor WMD, nor human rights, nor Middle East peace justification for waging war against Iraq. All these are simply a veneer for the actual motives: an unsavoury mix of domestic politics and strategic interests. War wins votes. The war on terrorism has brought a massive boost to Bush popularity. The war on terrorism failed to find its initial target, Osama bin Laden, and hence needs a new one. After two years in office Bush has nothing else to trumpet: sharp economic decline, corporate scandals, a foreign policy marked by more broken fences than mended ones. The American economy is heavily dependent on oil; Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. These are the factors driving America to war. They are vastly different from the reasons being presented before the UN and public opinion, as a justification for military action against Iraq.�