| |
The long arm of
resistance
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
KARACHI -
With the onset of summer, the heat of resistance is
gaining momentum in the Afghan mountains and in the
Iraqi deserts. The emergence of powerful resistance
movements in these two countries is certainly worrisome
to the US administration, but players in the region,
especially Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia, are also
carefully watching these war zones for possible
implications for their regimes.
For the first
time in 100 years, Pakistan has sent regular troops to
the sensitive border area of the virtually inaccessible
Federally Administered Tribal Areas in a effort to trap
Taliban and al-Qaeda elements being flushed out by US
troops across the border in Afghanistan. At the same
time, President General Pervez Musharraf has suggested
that Pakistan would be willing to send troops to Iraq.
Yet even as these sensitive, pro-US moves were
taking place (coinciding with Musharraf's visit to
Washington to meet President George W Bush), the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, General
Mohammed Aziz Khan, came out with an extraordinary
comment at a public gathering, "America is the number
one enemy of the Muslim world and is conspiring against
Muslim nations all over the world." He also mentioned
that politics should not be done in "uniform", a clear
reference to Musharraf's position as Chief of the Army
Staff, opposition to which has become a rallying point
in anti-government quarters. Aziz Khan also stressed
that even with a solution to the Kashmir dispute, India
and Pakistan could never be friends.
Reporters
covering the speech were stunned by the remarks, and
concerned as to how to cover it. Eventually they
collaborated on a single report so that in the event of
a denial, they could take a joint stand. Later on, to
the surprise of many, the same story arrived in news
rooms from the government agency, Associated Press of
Pakistan. The Inter-Services Public Relations of the
Pakistan Army then quickly sent out recommendations that
the sensitive parts of the speech be omitted. Those
papers that had already not gone to print pulled the
story.
Nevertheless, some dismissed the incident
as unimportant as Aziz Khan's position is largely
ceremonial. However, those who know the man see the
development as an indication of simmering discontent
within the armed forces.
Aziz Khan belongs to
the Sudan tribe of Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, and he
became the first from their ranks to be made a general.
He was known as a dedicated member of the Islami
Jamiat-i-Talaba (the student wing of the fundamentalist
Jamaat-i-Islami) during his college days, and in later
years he developed very close ties with militant groups.
His excellent communication skills (especially his
spoken English) and his camaraderie - he calls all
junior officers "son" - made him very popular on his
rise through the ranks.
On October 12, 1999,
then-premier Nawaz Sharif announced that he was going to
replace Musharraf with Khawaja Ziauddin as Chief of Army
Staff. Ziauddin was a relatively junior
lieutenant-general and it would have meant the end of
the careers of at least eight lieutenant-generals senior
to him - one of them being Aziz Khan, who was then Chief
of General Staff. Aziz Khan immediately convinced the
commander of 10 Corps, Lieutenant-General Mehmood Ahmed,
to rebel against the decision, and the result was the
bloodless coup that propelled Musharraf into power.
Nevertheless, these two men wielded enormous influence
over the general's decisions. This fact, and Aziz Khan's
flirting with the Jamaat-i-Islami, resulted in him being
pushed into his current ceremonial role, from where he
now appears to be building up opposition to Musharraf.
In the past month, Maulana Masood Azhar, the
chief of the banned Jaish-i-Mohammed, a militant Islamic
group that was based in Pakistan and which has a long
history of militancy in the Kashmir region, has quietly
been visiting Pakistan. But recently he visited Karachi
and addressed a big public gathering. Unlike in the
past, no official moves were made to block his
movements. Observers believe that there will now be
stepped-up efforts in Kashmir to derail the nascent
peace initiative between India and Pakistan, as has
happened many times in the past. The most recent attack,
at the weekend, in which two militants cut the fence
protecting the perimeter of the 36 Infantry Brigade's
camp in Sunjwan, on the outskirts of Jammu, made their
way to a barracks and shot dead a dozen soldiers, could
be a harbinger of things to come.
It
is not improbable, given Pakistan's history, that
Aziz is laying the ground work for a body of people to
force the government to do an about-turn in its support
for the United States should the resistance movement in
Afghanistan take off into a truly large-scale struggle.
Iran finds itself in a similar position. Tehran
has played a double role from the beginning, both in
regard to Iraq and Afghanistan. For instance, it opposed
the US attack on Afghanistan, but harbored Northern
Alliance troops to help US troops. It gave refuge to
Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, whose Hizb-i-Islami (HIA) is the
lead outfit in the new Afghan resistance movement, but
when the US exerted pressure, the Iranian authorities
expelled him in such a manner that he could not be
caught by the Americans. At the same time, they continue
to provide shelter to several top HIA members, who
remain the point of contact between the guerrillas in
Afghanistan and Iran.
Iran also has several
suspected Arab al-Qaeda members in its custody, but it
prefers to hand them over to their countries of origin
rather than to the US, as it did last year, including to
Saudi Arabia. Iran voiced strong opposition to the
US-led attack on Iraq, but at the same time it supported
the Badr Brigade of Baqar al-Hakeem, the military arm of
the Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq,
which covertly provided support to the US. Iran is also
closely watching events in the Iraqi Kurdish areas, from
where many members of the militant Ansarul Islam fled to
Iran after the US invasion. This organization could
emerge as a disruptive force again.
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia plays the same double game.
It cannot separate itself from its tough Islamic ideology
as this underpins the ruling House of Saud. But at
the same time, on the diplomatic front, the country
cannot afford to totally alienate the US and Britain, on whom it has
relied for many years, even though hardliners now want a
clear anti-US policy.
The result is that the
authorities are turning a blind eye to volunteers
crossing over the border into Iraq to join the anti-US
forces there, while at the same time they are cracking
down on terror cells that are active in Saudi Arabia.
How long the Saudi authorities can keep on
walking this tightrope is questionable: much could
depend on events in Iraq; just as factions in Pakistan
are waiting on events in Afghanistan to bubble over.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
