|
|
JEDDAH, 1 December — The post-Taleban situation in Afghanistan is certainly
not going to be a happy one, asserts Pakistani cricketer-turned politician Imran
Khan.
"If the US objective was to replace the Taleban, then they have won the war, but if they think they have won the war against terrorism as projected by their media, then they are totally mistaken, says Imran, chief of the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf party.
In an interview with Arab News during his recent visit to Jeddah, Imran Khan pointed out how the sympathy in Pakistan and the rest of the world, which was with the US in the wake of the Sept. 11 tragedy has now shifted toward the people of Afghanistan "who are the innocent victims of American bombings."
If the minority Northern Alliance comes to power or even shares power with others then the post-Taleban Afghanistan will have to face a continuing civil war, Imran added.
Emphasizing that the entire Muslim world had condemned the Sept. 11 attacks on the US, he said the US ought to have provided evidence before launching a full-scale war on Afghanistan in a bid to capture Osama Bin Laden and destroy his Al-Qaeda network.
Imran was all praise for President Gen. Pervez Musharraf for the way he handled the situation and supported the US action. "Enmity with America would have proved to be costly for Pakistan. Pakistan would have been termed a terrorist state, what is more, the country would have become even more impoverished," said Imran.
He agrees with Gen. Pervez Musharraf that the two elected prime ministers had provided a sham democracy and hopes that the military ruler will stand by his promise to restore true democracy. "We don’t see corruption at the top level and we give credit to Gen. Musharraf for that. But whether he should remain president of the country after the elections, that is something for an elected government to decide," insists Imran who also answered a couple of questions on his party’s programs and electoral chances.
Following are excerpts from the interview:
Q. What do you think of the present Afghanistan situation?
A. I think that the Americans have made a big blunder by the route they have taken in dealing with Afghanistan. They have made the world a more dangerous place to live in. This was not a logical move. This move to bomb Afghanistan three weeks after the event, was egged on by public opinion, understandably an angry public that wanted some sort of retribution. Sadly the American government went along with that to please the public. They took a step, which is going to be counterproductive against terrorism. The rationale behind attacking a country of 20 million people, where not even a single citizen had anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks, for any person who believes in logic, it’s totally bizarre. At best what the Afghans could be accused of was harboring terrorism.
True, the Taleban ended up taking a step, which not only ended their rule but also has probably destroyed Afghanistan, an already impoverished country. But I think the blame lies with the US. They should understand that war is the last resort. They should have exhausted every other possibility before resorting to bombing. Unfortunately, that was not done. The American military buildup started taking place almost immediately when no one could have been sure who was behind the attacks. On mere suspicion the daisy cutters, Cruise missiles and the American military might started moving toward Afghanistan.
And in the end all the sympathy in Pakistan and the Muslim world which was with the US for the Sept. 11 tragedy shifted toward the people of Afghanistan who now became victims of the US might and I’m afraid the effect of this war is going to be that the hatred against the US is increasing, it will become more intense and as we all know that terrorism is an outcome of sheer hatred born out of a feeling of injustice, hopelessness, helplessness, humiliation which produces a terrorist.
And I’m afraid what has really happened is this carnage in Afghanistan. How could it be a fight between good and evil when the Taleban have been replaced by the Northern Alliance whose track record makes the Taleban look like angels.
What the Northern Alliance did in Afghanistan between 1992 and 1996 is not a secret. Everyone knows that some of its commanders were involved in the pillage and rape of Kabul. Over 50,000 people were killed in Kabul during that time. Atrocities were committed. Anarchy and chaos (prevailed) during the four years. To replace the Taleban by the Northern Alliance in itself shows that the US is not at all worried about what the consequences of the action will be on Afghanistan as long as they achieve their ends.
Q. Do you think the Taleban handled the situation well...their reaction to whatever the US wanted to do?
A. I don’t agree with a lot of things that the Taleban have done. Let me say that their brand of Islam that was practiced is not what enlightened Muslims consider Islam to be. The treatment of women and what they did for the Buddha statues were against the tenets of Islam. Islam is a religion of heart and mind. It’s not a religion which is supposed to impose your views on others. Having said all that they were right in asking for evidence. It’s what international law is. If a Pakistani runs off after plundering the country and if we want him back in Pakistan, the other country wants evidence. Even then countries will insist on trying their people themselves. An Israeli youth three years ago killed two Americans and ran off to Israel and the Israeli government refused to hand him back. Eventually the youth was sentenced in Israel. The US government tried everything to get him extradited and the Israeli Supreme Court refused.
Q. What do you think should be the set-up of government in the post-Taleban Afghanistan?
A. If the Americans in the beginning had provided evidence, also it was a much better time to build a broad-based government that would have replaced the Taleban. This is a myth generated by the media that the Taleban would have held out against the American bombing. How can those people who only had light weapons fight against daisy cutters and cluster bombs? It was inevitable that the Taleban would have fallen in one, two or three weeks. The US should have prepared a government, a broad-based government to replace the Taleban.
They did not do any such thing. Their hasty action of bombing Kabul started and then allowed the Northern Alliance to walk into Kabul. The Northern Alliance, which comprises mainly Tajiks and Uzbeks, forms 16 to 18 percent of the population. The Pashtuns are 65 to 70 percent of the population of Afghanistan. Now here we have a situation where the Northern Alliance is going to dominate a government, though they represent a minority. So how long will the majority accept the small minority rule? Time will tell but I don’t think, and again I go back to the track record of the Northern Alliance. The whole fighting began in Afghanistan because Burhanuddin Rabbani refused to share power. We have a situation now in which the Northern Alliance holds all the cards and power. Why will it share power with anyone? It will give a bit of power to anyone else joining the coalition government, but it will hold the main levers of power and as long as it does that there is the potential of a civil war or a conflict in Afghanistan.
Q. The Alliance will have the control, and so they’ll try and dictate whatever has to be done?
A. Well, they have the might already. They have the arms and ammunitions given by the US, the (former) Soviet Union. They have the money. They have Kabul in their possession. Why would they (do that). At best what they will do is to allow some sort of power to the southern people, but the majority of Afghanistan will be controlled by the Northern Alliance.
Q. If the international community forms an interim government consisting of various elements of Afghanistan, do you think the Northern Alliance will allow them to function?
A. Rabbani is the president, Whatever is the government. This is the key. If the Northern Alliance allows a proper power-sharing, the Pashtuns or the majority should have a bigger share of the government because that is what the population mix is. Of course, there is a chance that the government will work if the US spends a lot of money. But if this does not happen and the Northern Alliance insists on keeping the main power distributing the rest to the others then you’ve a future conflict in Afghanistan.
Q. What do you think of the Sept. 11 attacks as a Muslim, as an intellectual?
A. Any one who has human feelings has to condemn those attacks as an attack against humanity. And for a Muslim, we’ve a clear Qur’anic injunction that you just cannot kill innocent people. Therefore, most of the Muslim world felt strongly and we condemned those attacks.
Q. What do you think of Osama Bin Laden? Do you think he was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks?
A. Well, it was wrong for him to have endorsed those attacks. As far as I understand, there was an interview in Pakistan where he distanced himself from the attacks and later endorsed them. Whether he did it or not, I cannot say for sure that attacks of such precision could have been planned from Afghanistan, a place where he was already being monitored and he could not have used any electronic communication. I don’t know. That’s why it was important that evidence should have been collected before any action was taken.
Q. What do you think of Pakistan’s role in the whole affair? Do you think President Pervez Musharraf acted correctly in allowing America to use its bases?
A. Gen. Musharraf had no choice and I think he made the right decision because otherwise Pakistan would have been declared a terrorist state and would have suffered the effects (of) enmity of the US, which Pakistan clearly cannot afford. So I think in the circumstances he made the right decision. But I do think that he could have probably taken a stronger role to make the US understand that the action they are taking is going to be counterproductive.
May be he did (act) behind the scenes but that role was not powerful enough to stop Americans making this mistake. Americans and their media already think that they have won the war against terrorism. They are totally mistaken. If their objective was merely dislodging Taleban then that’s right. They’ve won. But if their objective is to fight world terrorism then I think they are going to lose the war.
Because so many innocent people have been killed and the bombing has been condemned all over the world. It has aroused anger. There are fanatics in every society and there is quite a possibility that fanatics in the Muslim world would try and avenge this, perceiving it to be the death of a lot of innocent people. I think there is a real danger that we could see terrorism in the future against the US.
Q. You welcomed it when Gen. Musharraf took over power. How do you assess his performance?
A. It depends on how Gen. Musharraf conducts the forthcoming elections. If he conducts a proper election in Pakistan where criminals are not allowed to fight an election and if he forms a strong election commission, which ensures that political mafias do not come into politics, which have dominated and plundered our country, then I would consider it a big success.
On the other hand if at the end we see the same faces again and the only difference is that the same crooks are pro-Musharraf then it would have been a failure. I have to say that at least now there is no corruption at the top level, which is a very big positive thing. At least, you cannot call the general and his Cabinet corrupt, but I don’t think accountability is as successful as we wanted it to be.
About the economy, I’m afraid, Gen. Musharraf has followed the IMF dictates, the IMF conditions that have impoverished the people further. So I don’t think the economic program was successful although there were some good things done economically. The people have faced more and more hardships all the time. I hear electricity (tariff) is going up again by 10 percent, which is a disaster for the common man.
Q. What about his decision to stay on as president even after the elections?
A. It all depends on the elected parliament. If the elected parliament endorses it then he can continue. If the elected parliament says no to him then he cannot remain.
Q. Have you broadened the base of your party? How do you think your party is going to fare in the elections?
A. It’s not visible to the people right now but I think our party Insha’allah will form the government after the next elections. The reason is the people want a change and are tired of the two main political parties. There are 15 million young voters that have come into the electoral rolls afresh due to reducing the voting age from 21 to 18 years. And these 15 million voters will play a decisive role in the next election.
Unfortunately, since the military government came there has been no political activity and people can’t see these trends among the public. But once you see campaigning, you’ll see the change.
Q. What new plans and programs does your party have for the country?
A. Our party’s main plank is human development. We feel that there has to be an investment in the people of Pakistan. In our manifesto, the education program is the best. I challenge any party that has any such program. Secondly, we want to revamp the justice system. Thirdly, the taxation. We want to lower taxes. We want to revamp the collection machinery so that more revenue is generated. We do not want to rely on indirect taxation. That is destroying, impoverishing the majority of people.
We have a health program for Pakistan. Our main program is to bring things directly to people bypassing bureaucracy. What we are going to do is to have innovative programs that bypass bureaucracy so that a corrupt bureaucracy does not control people’s lives. Then we want to the bureaucratic system merit-based and give them adequate salaries.
Q. You talked about health care. Do you propose to open more cancer hospitals?
A. The problem is the hospital is so overcrowded. It has such a long waiting list. We’re now thinking of setting up another cancer hospital in Karachi. Before we start fund-raising for the Karachi project, we want to set up an endowment fund that will give us a safety factor, security about the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital in Lahore. And then we’ll start a similar one in Karachi.
We do not want to go into a Karachi hospital and then find that we have financial problems. That’s why we want to build an endowment fund. Just one cancer hospital cannot cope with the rush in Pakistan. You need one in Karachi and then also one in Peshawar. At least you need three hospitals in Pakistan.