COMMENT Be skeptical ... be
very skeptical By M K
Bhadrakumar
One of the significant
contributions to the "war on terror" by Britain's
home secretary David Blunkett before his abrupt
departure from the Tony Blair cabinet last year
was his statement on terrorism in the House of
Commons that specifically flagged the possibility
of a "dirty bomb" being planted in Britain by
terrorists.
That was in November 2002,
when preparations were already in an advanced
stage for the march to Baghdad. We are still
waiting for the dirty bomb and its lethal
radiation. The dirty bomb genre, however, provoked
two years later a brilliant television series on
BBC2 by acclaimed documentary producer Adam
Curtis, titled
The
Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of
Fear.
Curtis's argument was that much
of the threat of international terrorism turns out
to be in actuality "a fantasy that has been
exaggerated and distorted by politicians ... In an
age when all the grand ideas have lost
credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the
politicians have left to maintain their power."
Curtis placed al-Qaeda terrorism in a long
line of dramatic panics in Britain's checkered
history since the Elizabethan era, which included
the arrival of Spanish raiding parties, French
revolutionary agitators, anarchists, Bolsheviks,
and Irish republicans.
Naturally, Curtis
comes readily to mind a week after British
authorities arrested some two dozen Muslims on
August 10 for plotting to blow up trans-Atlantic
flights from United Kingdom to the United States.
Not a shred of evidence has since seen the light
of day in this Mother of all Dastardly Plots.
Meanwhile, wild stories of new plots in
the making are in circulation. The latest was the
"breaking news" regarding the emergency landing of
an aircraft in Boston on Wednesday due to the
tantrums of an "unruly" woman passenger. Last
weekend, Michigan police locked up three hapless
Palestinian-Americans for allegedly plotting an
act of terrorism. The three "terrorists" were
caught red-handed purchasing 80 cell phones from a
Wal-Mart store.
Michigan police concluded
that the cell phones could be used as detonators
to blow up the Mackinac Bridge, which connected
the peninsula's upper and lower parts.
Subsequently it transpired that the three detained
"terrorists" bought and sold cell phones to make a
living.
The London plot itself is becoming
curiouser and curiouser. Reports have appeared
that the British security agencies were feeling
increasingly uncomfortable that their American
counterparts rushed to make out that the alleged
plot was linked to al-Qaeda. More importantly, it
appears that sources in London have begun
distancing themselves from the plot by claiming
that the British side was pressured from
Washington to go public with the plot despite a
lack of evidence and clear and convincing facts
whether any conspiracy in fact existed at all.
Not surprisingly, the loudest voices of
skepticism about the alleged plot are heard in
Pakistan, where of course the public is habitually
cynical over anything that goes to the credit of
the establishment. This despite the insistent
claim that the UK, US and Pakistani security
agencies had actively coordinated in thwarting the
plot - a scenario that cast Pakistan as a plucky,
feisty partner in the "war on terror", quite
contrary to the prevailing impression that
Islamabad is possibly indulging in doublespeak.
The skeptics in Pakistan feel that the
entire plot is a crudely executed hoax by the Bush
administration. It was not only the so-called
"jihadi" circles in Pakistan that ridiculed the
plot but even sections of opinion, which usually
put primacy on reasoning. The Pakistani newspaper
Daily Times commented editorially, "There is a
horrible war going on in Lebanon and it is not
unfolding in favor of Israel, US and UK. Iraq has
gone bad; Afghanistan is getting worse.
"The Bush-Blair duo is in trouble at home
and both need something really big to happen to
justify their policies and distract attention from
their losses ... the past record of intelligence
agencies everywhere suggests they are quite
capable of blowing up or underplaying things for
better media management of their respective
governments' performance. So a bit of skepticism
is in order."
Adam Curtis had an
explanation for the dilemma facing the saner
sections of opinion in times of public hysteria.
As he explained two years ago, such plots, when
blown up in larger-than-life terms and whipping up
an atmosphere of hysteria, have a way of trapping
us. In the process, we get "trapped by a fear that
is completely irrational".
Indeed, in a
poll after the plot story broke, 55% of Americans
voiced approval of Bush's handling of terrorism
and homeland security. A beaming Bush promptly
promised his nervous nation that the terror fight
may last for "years to come". Democrats are
beginning to accuse the Republicans of using the
scare to political advantage ahead of the November
elections to the US Congress.
Former US
president Bill Clinton said: "They [the Bush
administration] seem to be anxious to tie it to
al-Qaeda. If that's true, how come we've got seven
times as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan? I
think that Republicans should be very careful in
playing politics with this London thing because
they're going to have a hard time with the facts."
All the same, it is extraordinary that the
mainstream media in the US could so willingly
suspend their disbelief over the patchy official
claims that the plot was a "real idea" of cosmic
significance. Furthermore, they dutifully ran
"expert opinions" by commentators on the alleged
plotters' al-Qaeda connections. Not a single
mainstream newspaper in the US challenged the plot
theory as such - leave alone pointed out the
patent gulf between the London plotters' ambition
and their ability to pull it off.
It could
be that they have succumbed to the "suspiciously
circular relationship between the security
services and much of the media" (to quote Curtis)
in which official briefings become the stuff of
dramatic press stories and prompt further
briefings and further stories.
At any
rate, terrorism thrives on bluff. Think of the
horrific bomb blasts in Mumbai last month. Unlike
the ethereal London plot, it was tangible; it was
verifiable. It was of a piece, by all indications,
with the cycle of violence ripping apart India's
composite society for the past decade or so since
the Babri Mosque was pulled down by vandals
incited by Hindu fundamentalists.
Yet, in
the wake of the Mumbai blasts, an attempt has been
made to link the abhorrent violence to al-Qaeda.
As if al-Qaeda is an organized international
network. As if it has members or a leader. As if
it has "sleeper cells". As if it has
corporate-style affiliates and subsidiaries. As if
it has a strategy towards India.
Indian
media people seem to be unaware that al-Qaeda
barely exists at all and that it is more an idea
about cleansing the impure world of Islam
corrupted by the al-Adou al-Qareeb (Muslim
apostates) and al-Adou al-Baeed or the "far
enemy" (Israel and the Western powers), through
violence sanctioned by religion explicitly for
such extraordinary times.
Indian opinion
makers seem to believe that countering al-Qaeda
justifies a national security objective. Some
among them no doubt fancy that a closer "strategic
partnership" with the Bush administration becomes
possible if only India were to assertively stake
claim to be a frontline state in the "war on
terror". But there is no way that India can hope
to gain entry into the exclusive, charmed circle
that comprises the US Central Intelligence Agency,
Britain's MI6 and Pakistan's Inter-Services
Intelligence.
The so-called Islamic terror
network is the trinity's fabrication. It has
become what would be known in intelligence
parlance as an "asset" or an "instrument". The
"intelligence assets" do enjoy a certain measure
of independence and autonomy vis-a-vis their
sponsors but that is part of the art of
dissimulation. Al-Qaeda has incrementally become
then a situation or a chain of events in politics
that can arouse a particular emotional reaction
instantaneously.
M K Bhadrakumar
served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign
Service for over 29 years, with postings including
India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998) and
to Turkey (1998-2001).
(Copyright 2006
Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and republishing
.)
